Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

RfC on the use of the definite article (a.k.a. the word "the")

This request for comments concerns the following question: In the first sentence of the article, does the term "Department of Government Efficiency" require a definite article before it, i.e. "the Department of Government Efficiency"?

The sentence in question: Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), officially the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, is a temporary organization under the United States DOGE Service.

Proposed change: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), officially the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, is a temporary organization under the United States DOGE Service.

NateNate60 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Argument in favour: The Department of Government Efficiency is worded like an executive department and thus should receive the same grammatical treatment (e.g. "the Department for Education") regardless of whether it actually is an executive department. The fact that it is not an executive department is stated immediately thereafter and thus there's little chance of confusion. The term "Department of Government Efficiency" refers to exactly one specific organisation within the Government and not the concept more generally, and thus it is appropriate to use the definite article. Additionally, the executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency uses the definite article as well.

NateNate60 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

- Support on the basis that “The Department…” sounds consistent with RS. Oppose adding to the title. Dw31415 (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

As I have outlined in the discussion "DOGE", "the DOGE" or "the U.S. DOGE" ?, if "the" is present it should be in bold and ideally reflect a name change of the article.

I will summarise the two key points of my argument below:

The definite article is not appropriate when used with proper nouns, such as personal names, or company names; unless "The" is a part of that name, such as "The Beatles" or "The Washington Post." In the latter case, "The" would normally be a part of the article name and included in bold. As I have stated, I am willing to compromise if "The" is in bold even if it is not a part of the article name, this is because what I care about here is not miscommunicating to the reader that DOGE is a government department, which it is not.

In summary the two reasons I oppose a change to include the definite article unless it is in Bold, is because it is grammatically incorrect, and because it has a significant potential to mislead. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

An analogous example is Hard Rock Cafe, if "The" were included in the article lead, it would cause readers to believe it is a cafe instead of a company. I have had no comment on this analogy from opposing editors, nor on other analogies I've made to explain my point. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If the company were called "The Hard Rock Cafe", then "the" would be included in bold and in the article name. If there are sources which show DOGE is officially called The Department of Government Efficiency, then the article should be renamed and "The" should be included in bold. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Support change of lede, against change of the article title or use of definite article with abbreviation.

If reliable sources are using the definite article with the Department of Government Efficiency and thereby implying it is some kind of government entity, then we should be following reliable sources on it. While I empathize with Terrainman's concerns that we could be miscommunicating to the reader that DOGE is a government department, what matters are how sources are treating it, and it looks like grammatically, DOGE is a government department.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) doesn't seem to be satisfied for adding "the" to the actual article title, so I would reject that.

This should not be extended to use of the abbreviation. To use the Wall Street Journal as an example, this article on DOGE describes it as "the Department of Government Efficiency", but uses "DOGE" without an article to abbreviate. My speculation would be that because DOGE is named after Doge (meme) (which does not have a definite article), adding a definite article (The DOGE) would imply it has a different name. But that's speculation on my part. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

AS I said, if sources are provided which refer to it as "The Department..." then it should be changed, with The in bold to emphasis this is a part of the name. Can I clarify what your position on whether it should be in bold is? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"The" does not appear to be bolded as part of the proposed change. That being said, I would not support bolding it in the lede as it is not part of the title of the department. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean not part of the title of the department? Do you mean not a part of the name? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's correct, it's not part of the name. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is not a part of the name then it shouldn't be included at all. DOGE is not a department. I'm unsure where the logic is in prefacing that something which isn't a department should be called The Department of X when you believe that "The" is not a part of the name. If the Name is just "Department of X" and you are aware that it isn't a department and that this is just a moniker, why would you include "The"? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The point that many people seem to be making is that grammatically speaking it does not matter whether it is legally an executive department or not. Grammatically it still must be treated the same as an executive department.

NateNate60 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Why? Is hard rock cafe treated as a cafe for grammar? I really don't understand the logic here whatsoever. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Terrainman That is because there is more than one Hard Rock Cafe but only one Department of Government Efficiency. "Hard Rock Cafe" does not refer to any specific location. It is a label that applies to any of several locations with the same name.

NateNate60 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No it's because hard rock cafe is a company name. School of rock is an example where the title is sometimes The School of rock, and in this case 'The' is in bold. I will look for other examples which show what I mean but I think you get what I'm saying here right? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet we say "The Las Vegas Hard Rock Cafe". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The simpsons is an example where you can obviously see why it would be wrong to not have "The" in bold right? It is a part of the name. Do you agree that your arguments for it being unique and such don't make sense here? So what is the key difference between The Simpsons in regard to "the" as a part of the name or not, and DOGE? Sorry if this is a dumb analogy, but I think it gets to the heart of it if you can explain what the difference is between this and DOGE. Because I am still really lost at where you're coming from. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Terrainman: The question I have is, can you provide citations showing your use is correct? The New York Times uses "the Department of Government Efficiency" in the body text[1] (though drops it in the headline per [2]) The Associated Press also uses "the Department of Government Efficiency".[3] The Hill uses "the Department of Government Efficiency" and refers to it as "the DOGE".[4] Politico uses "The so-called Department of Government Efficiency" but drops the article when using "DOGE". [5] This Harvard Kennedy School piece uses "the Department of Government Efficiency" but also drops the article when using the abbreviation.[6] Based on the majority of sources I've chosen to read (the ones that show up in a news search), I see support for the Department of Government Efficiency and DOGE, not Department of Government Efficiency, The Department of Government Efficiency, or the DOGE.

If you want to convince me and other editors, I'd prefer you reference how (preferably American) reliable sources grammatically treat DOGE instead of reasoning by analogy. Please provide links to sources that support your viewpoint. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

First of all "The department of government efficiency" would certainly be an alternative name rather than primary. It wouldn't sound right to say "Donald Trump has chosen Elon musk to head the newly formed The Department of Government Efficiency". So you won't find any sources which say this. When "the" is used it is necessarily a part of the name rather than a grammatical tool, this is becasue it does not make sense to use it as a grammatical tool since it is not a department, unless it is followed by another noun such as commission or organization. It would make sense to say "The Department of Government efficiency organization" with "The" as a grammatical tool.

As for sources, all of the sources which describe DOGE as an organization and advisory body rather than a department support my argument. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason that "Donald Trump has chosen Elon musk to head the newly formed The Department of Government Efficiency" (emphasis added) would not sound right is because there is already a definite article referring to the same noun, the emphasized one, so a second definite article. Also, on the topic of using "the" as a grammatical tool, in the Department of Government Efficiency the word "the" is applying to the noun "Department of Government Efficiency" not the noun "Department" because "Department of Government Efficiency" is a joint noun. Fun Chaos (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Usually it isn't however. Car starts with "A car" not "The car", it is much rarer to use "The" when referring to a general concept. The problem with using it in this fashion on this article is that most people, I think, will infer that it is pointing to Department as a head noun. But it's a moot point now I think, since I have conceded after an IP editor gave another example of a US agency which all sources including primary refer to as a department, despite it not being so, with the definite article. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chess Also, I would like to point out that I am not reasoning by analogy, but using analogies to explain my reasoning when it hasn't been understood. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

(@Chess) I would like to point out the executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency reads:

"This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda". Emphasis added.

There does, however, seem to be a consensus among American news agencies that "DOGE", the acronym, does not use the definite article. This is typical of agencies whose acronyms are pronounced as a single word, as previous talk threads have pointed out. An example would be NASA, which doesn't have the definite article before it, but an acronym pronounced as individual letters, like "the DOJ" (Department of Justice). That being said, whether the acronym needs a definite article is not the topic of this discussion. I agree that the word "the", if added, should not be bolded and the article title should not be changed. NateNate60 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In this case, if that primary source is considered as superior to the secondary sources in reliability, the article should be renamed to include "the", and The should be in bold. Since it would be a a part of the proper noun and not a grammatical tool 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Terrainman If it was part of the name as a proper noun, it would be capitalised in the executive order.

NateNate60 (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

True. Clearly they made a mistake, since it doesn't make sense to use it as a grammatical tool since it is not a department. Not sure what to say other than this, and the fact that we aren't supposed to interpret primary sources. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Terrainman I am not going to go in circles with you over this. You keep bringing up the same three points and then when we address one of them, you bring up another one of those three points like it hasn't been addressed twice over already.

You seem to be the only one in opposition to the definite article. Whenever literally anyone else adds it back, you are the only one here stubbornly reverting the edits. I have not seen anyone else who agrees with that position. I hate to be accusative and I've tried to be reasonable here, but there is a consensus of other editors that it needs a definite article, and that consensus needs to be followed even though it appears you're not a part of it. NateNate60 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources overwhelmingly say DOGE is not a department but an advisory body. I have offered the compromise of including "The" in bold, would it not be ideal to go with this compromise? I'm not wrong just because I'm outnumbered. It cannot possibly need a definite article, since it is a single proper noun rather than the name of a department... I feel like I'm talking to a wall when it comes to this point. Again, as a single proper noun, both Department of Government efficiency and The Department of Government efficiency is acceptable, but "The" has to be in bold. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Another compromise, rather than including "The" as part of the proper noun, would be: "The Department of Government efficiency organization". As the inclusion of 'organization' would function as the head noun; it is not incorrect to use the definite article here since DOGE is indeed an organization. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to @Chess mention you. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support the change (that is, including the definite article). We should not try to divine grammar rules for edge cases, when we have the media at large to do it for us. In this case, DOGE (and not the DOGE) but the Department (and not simply Department). Even as to grammar, the change is proper; one refers to Justice or Homeland Security or State, but the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department. This is even more so true in the case where Department comes first. In this case, the formal name does not even include the name of this article; but when the acronym DOGE is expanded, the definite article is used. (The EO uses it both for the USDS and the USDS TO.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  1. If the sources at large use "The", this doesn't mean "The" shoudln't be in bold in the lead. As it is a aprt of the proper noun

  2. You compare this to the justic department, but the justic department is a department, doge is not. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  • 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人: No, the fact that sources use the definite article in reference to the Department does not mean that the definite articles should form part of the title. See, as an obvious example, United States Department of Justice. The article begins, The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, &c. In both the full and short forms of the name, the definite article is used; and yet, the article title (United States Department of Justice) does not use it. Your second point is irrelevant; it does not matter what technical name is formally given to the Department (temporary organization, in this case), because it is generally known as the Department. Take the United States Environmental Protection Agency, for instance. If it was renamed the Department for Environmental Protection, but was still in practice an agency, the definite article would still be used, even though it is not actually a department; and the same is true, logically, of DOGE. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hold on, the sources use "The", but not as a gramamtical tool, but as a part of the proper noun of "The department of Government efficiency". That is my argument here. Example: The simpsons. Do you understand the difference that The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is a Department, where as DOGE is NOT a department, and "The Department of Government efficiency" is a name, and actually not even the official name but a moniker? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    In regard to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, I'm not sure what you mean here. It isn't referred to as a department. It is referred to as The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the article. This is a correct use of the definite article, since it is an agency, and agency is the head noun here. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Thirdly, if it is generally known as the department, then "the" is a part of the name. Because it is not a department. Do you understand? Do you understand that if "the" wasn't apart of the proper noun it would be incorrect because the head noun would be department and it is not a department? I feel like I've said this 1000 times at this point but it seems quite evident to me. Again, if it said "The department of Government efficiency organization." This would be correct. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    • 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人: Your example of the Simpsons actually is a nice parallel of my point. The television programme, The Simpsons, has the in its title, which is also in the title of the article. However, the family of the Simpsons, described as the Simpson family, has an article at Simpson family—while there is the definite article in the lede, it is not in the article title. As to your first sentence, the sources use the word the in its standard grammatical sense, not as part of a proper noun. Just because the name is usually preceded with the definite article does not mean that the definite article is a part of the name proper. I answered the rest of your first paragraph with my example of the EPA. I gave a hypothetical, where the EPA is structurally unchanged but the name is altered to begin with department (even though it is still, in fact, an agency). In that case, just as the article is now, the definite article would be used. Thus, it does not matter that, in the case of DOGE, it is not actually a department (even though it carries department in its name). As for your final paragraph, especially your claim that it seems quite evident, I am afraid to inform you (and I mean no insult) that your comments in this discussion betray a lack of understanding of the English language, and thus what seems quite evident to you does not necessarily accord with proper usage. I seem to gather, although it is hard to parse, that you believe that the fact that it is not literally a department means that the definite article cannot be used to identify it. I gave my example of the EPA (which I have discussed already in this surreply) to contradict that erroneous presumption. Further, it would be incorrect to refer to as the department organization, as that is neither an accurate descriptor nor its legal name. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

      In the example of the Simpson family, family is the head noun, and they are a family. In the example of DOGE, department is the head noun, and they are not a department.

      I'm sorry but I fail to see how your example of the EPA applies, I explained that it describes it as an agency as the head noun which makes sense. Perhaps it's me being daft? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) inclusoin of the definite article in the lead, as done in reliable sources. No need to change article name though. TarnishedPath^talk 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can I just ask if you agree that it would be both grammatically incorrect and misleading if "The" wasn't included in bold so it is obviously a part of the name rather than an indefinite article as a grammar tool? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support As proper English done by reliable sources. Whether it is actually a department or not is irrelevant as misnomers still follow the rules of English. Other articles like Department of Defense Education Activity have a preceding, unbolded, 'The' at the start. 115.188.138.105 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, at this point my argument is getting hard to maintain I will admit. This is a pretty damning example. The sources, including primary, also use "the" without capitalisation.

  I still think that you are all wrong, including the US government by the way. Very wrong and with poor grammar.

  I concede (lol). 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support proposed change (the definite article in the first sentence). The article title does not need to change, and "the" does not need to be bolded in the first sentence, as is consistent with other articles on official bodies. (Summoned by bot) Jr8825 • Talk 10:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Meta

Terrainman, there are 43 comments in this section, and 26 of them (60%) are from you. Please stop. Go read WP:How to lose, or Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, or User:Guy Macon/One against many, or maybe spend a pleasant hour in Category:Wikipedia humor, or have yourself a Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, or something, but please stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. Sure, you are 100% certain that they're 100% wrong, but you're not winning friends and influencing people this way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What is Musk’s title?

“Director” is used on his page and other pages; “temporary organization executive” and “not clear” are used on this page; the RS I’ve found seem to only say he is currently a “special Government employee.”

Does anyone have any guidance or suggestions? Or possibly a source that offers clarity? Mikewem (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I am also confused about this.

• The hiring freeze Executive Order mentions an "Administrator of the United States DOGE Service." The U.S Digital Service was renamed the U.S DOGE Service, but the actual "Department of Government Efficiency" is the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, which is under the US DOGE Service but is not the US DOGE Service itself.
• The Executive Order establishing DOGE only mentions a "USDS Administrator." I believe this is just an abbreviation of the above title. The EO also states that the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall be headed by the USDS Administrator, so this may be Musk's title.
• The merit Executive Order mentions an "Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency." This title is only mentioned here and does not appear anywhere else.

I recommend reading these executive orders, especially the one establishing DOGE.

So, Musk's title is either:

• Administrator of the United States DOGE Service

or

• Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency

Also, if his title is "Administrator of the United States DOGE Service", I think that would also mean he is leading the entire U.S. Digital Service (now U.S. DOGE Service), in addition to the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization ("Department of Government Efficiency"). Max1298 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I had looked at the EOs mainly to see if they mentioned him by name. They did not. If his title was Administrator there would’ve been a swearing in, according to the RS, there has not been one.

I’m going with “head of the Department of Government Efficiency” for now. The H in head would not be capitalized, because it is a generic use of the term, not the title of an office. Mikewem (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A declaration of Joshua Fisher (Director of the Office of Administration) (filed on February 17) states on page 2 that "Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service administrator." Jdquirke (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Currently his officially Special Government Employee, not sure on title though. head of DOGE seems good though. (I am fine with DOGE being spelled out, I just did not bother too in my reply.) Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.usdebtclock.org/ - now shows total savings by DOGE

Can someone add this? 188.142.192.183 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This website doesn't look notable or like a trustworthy source. Brad (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you point out any data on the website that isn't correct? 188.142.192.183 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Where does it get the information on how much DOGE saved the government? I can't see it when I hover over the field 2600:4808:48D2:FC00:0:0:0:315F (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The about page lists no sources, and clearly says the website is not affiliated with the government. How do we know any of their number are accurate? I could throw up a page like that in an afternoon, doesn't mean the information is correct. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that this specific debtclock website's been around for a while now -- though I also have personally never trusted any numbers it displayed considering there is no source cited. - BehindEveryLaughTheresAClown (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@BehindEveryLaughTheresAClown

Can you prove any of the information listed is incorrect? 188.142.192.183 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Should't the burden of proof be to prove it is correct? 2601:19B:4002:3530:519:E209:C3BD:A549 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Adolphus79

Can you prove any of the information listed is incorrect? 188.142.192.183 (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't simply assume that everything on the web is true until otherwise shown. That's not a good way to find reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source that confirms the correctness of the information on this site, we could just use that source instead. -- Beland (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If your next question is, "well then how do we tell if a web page is reliable?", here's a good guide. -- Beland (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@188.142.192.183, it is not my job to prove the information is incorrect, it is your job to prove it is correct in order to add it... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE itself has not published a total savings number at any point. it would be nice if they posted a weekly spreadsheet so we can see everything itemized and totaled, consistent with transparency and Musk liking to ask his workers "what did you get done this week?" I'd also like to know if a DOGE guy uses his superuser account on the Treasury system to unilaterally cancel payments, that would be nice to know. soibangla (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Treasury says Elon Musk's DOGE has "read only" access to payment systems. Beland (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

the Blum letter mentions only Tom Krause, not Marko Elez. Democratic senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the finance committee to whom the letter was sent, said it "reeks of a cover-up." Musk has said DOGE has actually canceled payments.[7] soibangla (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that's all now mentioned in the article. -- Beland (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, they are pulling the DOGE numbers out of their ass – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hard disagree. If it did, we'd know where they come from. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

"purported"

In the lead it reads, DOGE's purported purpose..., clearly against of MOS:ACCUSED, and points to violation of WP:NPV and useless presumptions by editors, also see WP:SYNTH. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 10:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Changing 'purported' to 'stated'. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 10:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the policy in the event sources dispute the stated/claimed/purported purpose, to where it is in dispute? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Legal issues - sources for the nearly 40 lawsuits

As a complement to secondary sources on the "nearly 40" legal cases against Trump-2.0, unpaywalled court sources are available at https://www.courtwatch.news/p/lawsuits-related-to-trump-admin-executive-orders to get past the fact that many of these are paywalled. Not all of these concern DOGE directly - some such as GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (1:25-cv-00347) appear to be against individuals claiming to be DOGE staff. Boud (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you for sharing this! kara❈talk 20:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Consensus for starting a new page dedicated exclusively to DOGE-related lawsuits? SiennaVue (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree. there seems to be enough content to create a new page dedicated exclusively to lawsuits. KitCatalog (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

legal brief image via Bluesky

Selbsportrait I continue to object to the inclusion of a screenshot of a legal brief via Bluesky. it is textbook WP:OR and I believe the editor's interpretation is inaccurate, which of course is the hazard of OR. I continue to believe the edit text and Bluesky reference should be removed. Thank you.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&diff=prev&oldid=1275404645 soibangla (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Then find the citation where the same has been said and put it there.

I won't work just for you to move the goalposts again. Selbsportrait (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

did you add the edit? do you think it's my responsibility to properly source it? soibangla (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The edit is properly sourced. You simply are disputing what someone said under oath. The screenshot simply validates an earlier citation you did not read.

You can always write up something with Nathan's piece:

https://www.crisesnotes.com/bombshell-court-filings-confirm-wired-notes-on-the-crises-reporting-raise-alarms-about-bfs-based-impoundment/

Even him accepts the testimony. Selbsportrait (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello to both of you. Thank you both for working to improve the quality of the page. I do oppose the inclusion of Bluesky as a source except in very limited cases. I’ll tale. Look at the link and see if I can make a suggestion. Dw31415 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

After a brief review of the link, I think the edit would be considered original research. It’s more consistent to wait and cite “reliable sources” on this information. I think including it in an edit was bold and I appreciate it and also appreciate other editors reviewing and removing it.

https://bsky.app/profile/kyledcheney.bsky.social/post/3lhwn3arr2227 Dw31415 (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The link t.co/iY9E51WycH led to this page:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609/gov.uscourts.nysd.636609.32.0.pdf

Is that original research? Selbsportrait (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be able to quote that affidavit with a reference, but it would have to be very limited and I might be wrong about that. I think it’s better to wait for an RS to synthesize that case. I expect the NYTimes already has. I’ll look for a link. Dw31415 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing the court case would not help trace my own source which is Kyle Cheney, Senior legal affairs reporter at POLITICO.

Also, I am still unsure how to cite court cases. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Politico is a RS. Did he publish an article about it? Dw31415 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe you’re looking for

In court filings this week, the lawyers representing the Trump administration said that only two people designated as special government employees had been given access to the Treasury systems and that the access was “over the shoulder,” meaning the workers could not edit any information and did not have access to the underlying code.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/nyregion/musk-doge-treasury-data-lawsuit.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Dw31415 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, let's review. So far, you failed to see the link to a court document, you failed to see who linked to it, and you failed to notice the timeline of events.

Tell me why your concerns should be given any more consideration. Selbsportrait (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I was just trying to be helpful. I looked at both the Bluesky link and the affidavit. Sorry my other links weren’t helpful. I’ll bow out. Dw31415 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this article support your edit? https://www.wired.com/story/treasury-department-doge-marko-elez-access/ Dw31415 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The court case has been mentioned to refute that article. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't 'refute' articles. Is there WP:RS and that is not WP:PRIMARY that gets into this? Just use what is available. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I meant that the court case has been mentioned to refute the claim being made in that article that is relevant to our discussion.

A simple way to solve the current problem is simply to say something like: "Kyle Cheney, Senior legal affairs reporter at POLITICO, notes that" etc. His post is a direct source of what he notes, and what he says is supported by a direct source to the legal case.

Talk pages are useless for this. Next time, I'll simply make the edit myself. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Selbsportrait is the text in question still in this article? It appears to me it has been spun off to the questionably titled United States Federal government targets of Elon Musk.

Also the only legitimate use of that screenshot (of a primary source, oath or not) is to say that the Trump administration has claimed that Elez didn't use any "write" capabilities. Anything else would be OR. ByVarying | talk 20:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@ByVarying what is the point of your rhetorical question?

Also, a legitimate use you seem to be missing is that it contradicts the claim that DOGE was only given read access. Selbsportrait (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Is File:DEI Related Contract Cancellations by DOGE (January 20–31, 2025).jpg suitable for the article?

Recently, there has been a disagreement on whether File:DEI Related Contract Cancellations by DOGE (January 20–31, 2025).jpg should be included in the article. For background, this was a document released by DOGE on January 31, 2025. This document itself is discussion by TIME Magazine and Business Insider. It is also currently in use on the List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency.

The reasonings for its initial removals were: “the Elon Musk and DOGE X accounts are most definitely not reliable sources” (first removal) and “these are unconfirmed and unofficial claims from a DOGE X account” (second removal). What does everyone think?

Should this document, released officially by DOGE, mentioned by RS, used on another Wikipedia article, and even transcribed on Wikisource be used on this article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I present this for discussion purposes only, but here's a chat I had with Musk's Grok AI:

LLM-generated discussion

Q: only congress can cut spending, DOGE is misrepresenting what they are doing A: That's correct based on the available information and the U.S. constitutional framework: Congressional Authority: Under the U.S. Constitution, the power of the purse — the authority to determine how money is spent — is explicitly granted to Congress. This means that only Congress can legally authorize, appropriate, or cut federal spending. DOGE's Role: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, is not a legally established government department with the authority to cut spending. It was created by executive order, which does not confer the power to alter or control federal spending directly. Instead: Proposals: DOGE can propose spending cuts, suggest policy changes, or recommend efficiency measures. However, these are recommendations that would need to be acted upon by Congress through legislative processes. Executive Actions: While DOGE can influence executive branch agencies to review contracts and spending under existing executive authority, any actual reduction in spending or contract cancellation might face legal challenges if done without Congressional approval. Misrepresentation Concerns: Various news reports, legal challenges, and public sentiments expressed on platforms like X suggest that DOGE's announcements about contract cancellations and savings might be misrepresenting the situation. The actions taken by DOGE could be seen as overstepping their legal bounds since they lack the authority to enforce spending cuts unilaterally. There's a clear distinction between proposing or recommending cuts and actually implementing them with the force of law. DOGE's announcements might give the impression of direct action where, legally, they can only influence or suggest. Legal Challenges: The legal battles, as reported, are centered around the constitutionality of DOGE's actions, with state attorneys general, among others, questioning the legitimacy of these moves under current law. Thus, while DOGE can highlight inefficiencies and propose solutions, any actual cuts to federal spending require Congressional action. The portrayal of DOGE's work as directly cutting spending might indeed be a misrepresentation of their legal capacity. ___

this Grok response encapsulates my view that, because DOGE has no legal authority to cut anything, these documents are for marketing purposes to show the public contracts and dollars DOGE will propose to Congress for cutting, but the documents give the false impression cuts have already been made and actual dollars have already been saved. this is a deception, a gross misrepresentation, essentially fraudulent; consequently these documents should be removed from Wikipedia entirely, unless they are clearly labeled by the originator as proposals. soibangla (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Soibangla: please don't fill discussion pages with LLM-generated content, per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199 § LLM/chatbot comments in discussions and WP:LLMTALK. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The whole DOGE purpose is questionable

House is holding hearings on DOGE. Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene is broadcasting and is literally saying the following: "Not only are we $36 trillion in debt, but the compounding interest on our debt is also growing out of control. Even if we decided to defund the entire federal government, we cannot escape our debt and the compounding interests owed on our debt which grows bigger and bigger every year." So why are they then offering a half-measure under the guise of a solution that doesn't actually solve the problem? Which means the goal is not to save money, but something else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwAmJGq5Fg&t=552s

Please, add this perspective and citation to the article, whoever has editing rights to it. It's relevant as Marjorie Taylor Greene is already mentioned at least 3 times, though with different involvment. Point here not in who said it but that measures to reduce government spendings are not enough to solve the US growing debt issue. And this was stated by republicans themselves. 2A04:7D84:AAC2:9860:B14A:8895:6AFD:4A98 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify Can you write a paragraph and tell me where in the article you want me to put it? DarmaniLink (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You may put it right after: "DOGE's stated purpose is to reduce wasteful and fraudulent federal spending, and eliminate excessive regulations." to make it something like "DOGE's stated purpose is to reduce wasteful and fraudulent federal spending, and eliminate excessive regulations, though, as was stated by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene during one of the House hearings of "DOGE Caucus": "... Even if we decided to defund the entire federal government, we cannot escape our debt .." with reference to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwAmJGq5Fg&t=552s

You can also put it right after "The White House and the Republican Party defended DOGE and Musk, stating they were in full compliance with federal law." to turn it into "The White House and the Republican Party defended DOGE and Musk, stating they were in full compliance with federal law, though as was stated by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene during one of the House hearings of "DOGE Caucus": "... Even if we decided to defund the entire federal government, we cannot escape our debt ..", making true aims/goals of the DOGE questionable. 2A04:7D84:AAC2:9860:B14A:8895:6AFD:4A98 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene, DOGE Subcommittee Chair, Bought Stock In Elon Musk’s Tesla

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2025/02/14/marjorie-taylor-greene-tesla-doge-elon-musk-stock/ 89.38.114.158 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Article from WIRED saying "DOGE’s Website Is Just One Big X Ad"

Note that Wired is considered reliable for science and technology. The article[8] makes it clear that "The source code for the new Department of Government Efficiency’s “official US government website” points to X as its primary source of authority, while sharing links to the site sends users to x.com." Wired examined its source code and found that it uses code to " search engines that when people search for content found on DOGE.gov, they should not show those pages in search results, but should instead display the posts on X." This means X becomes the main account. Many further details are in the article. I think this needs someone who is more technical than I am to write a section in the article about this. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried 3-4 times write a summary that is accurate in layman's terms without sounding too convoluted, but here's my best effort:

"WIRED reported that the website's Search engine optimization data (Canonical link element) so as to increase the likelihood that searches that could have lead users to the doge.gov website would instead lead to equivalent posts on DOGE's x.com account."

Rational: I have an IT background and the term "authoritative" per WIRED's article strikes me as having a technical nuance different from (and potentially conflated with) "authorative," so I tried to avoid it. See for example Domain_Name_System#Authoritative_name_server, where non-authoritative data is not necessarily "incorrect" or out of date, but rather "not directly from where the original data came form." So WIRED is right saying "authoritative" in the sense that "the information came from the tweets," but isn't saying something like "x.com is the controlling entity." (Both are controlled by DOGE its self.) The Mozilla documentation WIRED cites about the tag uses the term "canonical" instead. But the important part is that end-users are more likely to end up on x.com than doge.gov for a given search. Foonix0 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect United States DOGE Service

The existing article United States DOGE Service was created alongside this one and is marked as not being up to date. I suggest that it should not be updated, but redirected here until such time as there is a distinction to be made, and perhaps even after there is. Compare Office of Homeland Security, which redirects to Department of Homeland Security and is described there despite being legally distinct. 2601:642:4F84:1590:C8D:B02D:C9CB:6B91 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect proposed for reasons stated. Content at USDS that is not duly covered here may be integrated. 2601:642:4F84:1590:C8D:B02D:C9CB:6B91 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Merge – I think it would make sense to merge the two pages, considering the Service page contains additional information regarding the origin of the service and what it transitioned from. Stickymatch 04:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  There remains a separate article on the Digital Service. 2601:642:4F84:1590:C8D:B02D:C9CB:6B91 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Support per above. Dw31415 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree - I would suggest we redirect United States DOGE Service to this page. However, we should keep the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_Digital_Service page which is covering different content. KitCatalog (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the article. The subject of the article is notable enough comparing to the unknown-to-the-public internal agency Office of Homeland Security within the DHS. This article can be updated with more details included. Cfls (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:MERGE states that redundancy is a reason to merge pages. What distinction do you see to be made between the US DOGE Service and the Department of Government Efficiency, such that maintaining both would not be redundant? And where did you get the idea that the OHS was an "unknown internal agency within the DHS"? It was the White House staff office from which the DHS developed, and like every political development flowing out of 9/11, it was widely reported. 2601:642:4F84:1590:2173:ADDD:A109:8086 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC) (nominator)

• Agree - The United States DOGE Service is only notable because of DOGE itself. Merge and/or redirect per WP:INHERITORG Tea Of Size Class (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• The agency is still officially called United States Digital Service for obvious reasons (Congress has appropriated funds for that specifically named agency; if they used a different name, they wouldn't have money to pay DOGE people). The executive order only claimed to establish a "public name" for it. All the DOGE-related stuff can be in a single article, which should probably be Department of Government Efficiency per WP:COMMONNAME. That said, the situation is fast evolving amid dozens of lawsuits, at least one of which is expected to produce a ruling today, so there's no huge hurry to consolidate things yet. Nemo 17:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

"2025 United States constitutional crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 United States constitutional crisis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16 § 2025 United States constitutional crisis until a consensus is reached. Xeroctic (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

There is far too much bias in this Wikipedia page. A blatant example is the “constitutional crisis” paragraph. If you want to KEEP that paragraph I would HIGHLY recommend you talk about the OTHER sides perspective and how many also support this action and why some think it ISN’T a constitutional crisis. You just can’t go saying “some people think XYZ” without mentioning how, “some other people think ABC”, yknow? 71.32.52.113 (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done... it is not clear what changes you want made, please format your request as "Change X to Y" and include reliable sources for us to cite the change. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

NNSA workers fired

Is this part of DOGE's actions or a more general government program? If it is a DOGE action, perhaps it should be mentioned? US government tries to rehire nuclear staff it fired days ago Richard Nowell (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry, already has been :) Richard Nowell (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  yes. I just added a reference. KitCatalog (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Took another section restructuring pass to make the article readable, and to setup any forking

The article is huge now... and the +50k / almost 30% increase in article size and scope just in the past seven days is probably still dramatically underselling it. There's a ton of content we're not even all getting to. This section refactor hopefully will make it obvious where to put new stuff the next few days to a week, then we can see/know what should obviously be the first outward fork of this article -- all the big things like that prior were merges into this article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Department of Government Efficiency#Classified intelligence data leaked by DOGE

I removed this passage someone added with this edit, as it is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence:

* http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&diff=1276302382&oldid=1276301049

My edit summary:

"remove, there is no valid sourcing here -- it's DOGE claiming the data is released in 2024 by OPM but no underlying evidence or sourcing; a Tweet by unknown authors fails WP:RS. Do not re-add without addressing on talk page. "Twitter DOGE" in this context fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE."

All the source is--literally--an anonymous Tweet with no underlying evidence or links or data to substantiate the allegation the United States Office of Personnel Management in 2024 "already" leaked Top Secret staffing data about the National Reconnaissance Office before apparently the DOGE folks themselves had leaked it. Twitter in this sort of bonkers context is in no possible way or scenario any sort of WP:RS. Do we have any independent-of-DOGE and the administration sourcing that supports this wild claim?

While social media may be WP:RS compliant for non-controversial self-statements by an individual or organization--if I were notable and tweeted several times a year that I eat sushi every chance I get and I'm the biggest sushi afficianado outside of Japan--that's the sort of thing that's fine to source to me. Claiming another part of the US government leaked classified intelligence collateral before "you did" is extraordinarily controversial and mandates compelling sourcing independent in any way, shape or form from the right-wing media ecosystem. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I had previously removed it, with similar reasoning. the contributor then invoked WP:IAR to restore it, saying they had reviewed and confirmed the primary source OPM document, which is WP:OR. wow. soibangla (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The contributor is substantially wrong based on your assessment. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency nominated for Deletion

FYI, deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2025

Remove the sentence "Industry analysts view Musk's outcry as a non-issue" from the "Bulk firings and mass resignations of US government staff" subsection.

Current wording strongly implies that said industry analysts view Musk's criticism of the process as a non-issue, when a closer read of the source actually shows that the "non-issue" statement is directed at the stock price of Iron Mountain being temporarily hit, and was meant to reassure stock buyers. The current statement, which doesn't mention Iron Mountain at all and inserts that sentence directly after Musk's criticism of the process, implies that there are industry analysts that said Musk's criticism itself was a non-issue in the context of how the process was being conducted. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done It has been removed. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Classified data section re NRO

@WeatherWriter: you need to engage on talk here. There is no disputing possible based on the sources that the date in question IS classified. There is no disputing from sources that DOGE posted the NRO human collateral data online on their site. DOGE claims it was from an OPM source in 2024, but the only source of that claim is DOGE itself, and the source you cite simply cites back to DOGE. DOGE cannot be an authority for clearing up a controversy like this which they are central to; that's not how anything on the wiki or real life works. Right now, ALL sides are presented in the section, in the timeline the data came out/was advertised and amplified and then responded to.

The current title for the section is neutral: DOGE publicized classified data they claim a non-Intel government source released in 2024. The title right now says that.

What do you believe is a neutral title for that section based on all requirements laid out here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The info clearly is not classified as I can physically download it still and currently on the OPM website which was linked by DOGE in their X post. Y'all need to chill on the "this is 100% classified"-style of claims/arguments in the section...unless the OPM is still allowing the public to download classified data. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

We and our positions are always irrelevant; we have multiple sources saying the data IS classified and none that dispute it's classified--not even DOGE. What is the exact specific public fedscope.opm.gov URL you are referrring to? We absolutely 100% need to see it. What is the exact drilled down URL? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Classified information doesn't lose it's classification just because it is publicly available. It still remains classified. LeadingWeight (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Straight Arrow News, quoting the White House (not DOGE) on the matter: "DOGE is sharing OPM data from under the Biden administration. The headcount for this agency has been publicly available on OPM’s website." The supposed classified data is still publicly available and has been since March 2024. There is an NPOV issue here since, given what RS says, DOGE and OPM have been sharing classified data (which anyone can still see) and that needs to be explained in the section, unless people want to rewrite the section to indicate DOGE is not sharing classified info. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Exact URL, please. We are still with the self-source and the low profile/new/right ring (?) news source simply going with what DOGE says, while seemingly every other source says otherwise. DOGE does not outrank the rest of anything, we go by Wikipedia policy--not Elon or Trump policy. They have no power here. Let's do this by our standards. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The fedscope.opm.gov website is designed in a way that it seems not to be possible to deep link directly to the number.

However, the exact 1097 figure SAN cites can be seen on the website by going here, expanding "DoD Agencies", then "DD-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE", then right click on "DD82-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE" and click "filter".

The 1097 figure is identical to the number on doge.gov currently.

SAN alone is probably not enough to support notability, and thus this should probably not be in the article, even if the information is reliable. However the claim that fedscope publishes the data is WP:BLUE. Foonix0 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it. And no one disputes that OPM published it, we just wanted to validate to close the loop in the discussion. The real question is what is included in the article. Tons of RS say it's restricted or classified data cited to various sources and that the harm is publicizing it. DOGE's whole claim (and that Straight Arrow purported RS) is that it was "already out" there. But that doesn't undo any of the other RS, anyway. THat's why I think the current title of that subsection is solidly WP:NPOV, as is the presentation in the article of the sources/data/timeline.

The concensus seems to be evolving now that Straight Arrow News is not reliable, between here and there: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Straight Arrow News on Department of Government Efficiency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Straight Arrow News" before. Is this a reliable source? I look it up, and see it was launched by "Billionaire businessman and founder of TD Ameritrade Joe Ricketts". See Joe_Ricketts#Political_activities for more. It could be reliable in spite of his bias, but is it? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Karah Rucker, the author of this, has a clear pro-DOGE bias that I'm seeing on her Twitter feed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The article author seeming be to extreme MAGA or not isn't the Wikipedia policy concern, I suspect. It's the fact that the article hangs on presenting DOGE's word as authoritative, and they are neither authoritative or relevant for their position based on WP:RS. Literally no one has disputed the data is classified anywhere in WP:RS. The claim is "OPM did it first". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of looking that up with the reliable sources noticeboard. Even if the publication is reliable, they are still hanging their entire article on Doge's Twitter claim which is insufficient. Multiple sources that are trivially WP:RS say that DOGe publicized this data, and multiple WP:RS state this data for the National Reconnaissance Office is classified. Even IF it is shown to have been somehow on the OPM site in 2024, that HAS NOTHING to do with it's classified status and whether or not DOGE publicized it--which they did. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That they are "hanging their entire article" on the Tweet (and the bias of the author) suggests to me it is an unreliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That is almost even a lesser concern of mine. No one is actually anywhere in any WP:RS disputing any of the WP:RS that the data is classified or that DOGE amplified it, which is all the section is about. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Straight Arrow News is not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I put this here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Straight Arrow News on Department of Government Efficiency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

coming from RSN, agree with Horse Eye's Back. See reasoning on noticeboard. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2025 (2)

68.134.168.189 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk is not the head of DOGE. on Monday evening, a White House official stated plainly that “Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.” The official, Joshua Fisher, made the statement.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

In the first sentence I changed ‘led by’ to ‘advised by,’ to more accurately summarize the body.

I considered changing it to ‘whose de facto leader is,’ but I think that’s too wordy. Mikewem (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

RS say Elon Musk leads the DoGE. Perhaps it would be more debatable if there were any person who could be said to lead it in a legal sense, but without that, we should absolutely follow RS. And even then, he wouldn't need to be its legal administrator to "lead" it—I'm thinking of Deng Xiaoping, who was the leader of China 1978–89, despite not being head of state or general secretary of the CCP. Citation added. ByVarying | talk 01:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

RS now report Musk is not the DOGE administrator and has no decision-making authority, per a White House court brief, and DOGE technically reports to Susie Wiles soibangla (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Where are the RS you're talking about? And is it not too soon to tell what a statement apparently from today means for this? It seems to me that in last week's press conference and for months before that Musk was positioned as the leader of DoGE. The White House's statement doesn't appear to contradict the view that he is in fact leading DoGE. ByVarying | talk 02:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If you insist on having a variant of the word lead in the first sentence, then I have to go with “whose de facto leader is”, per RS Mikewem (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mikewem please follow WP:BRD and self revert; we have not obtained consensus and neither of you has responded to my claim that this reversal of the lead language is recentism, or that the preponderance of RS call Musk the leader of DoGE (the two sources @Soibangla put below equivocate and question the White House's recent claim, and the AP one you added seems to be implying that the statement about Musk not being in charge was made to avoid liability). ByVarying | talk 03:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

there was no equivocation in the source I provided that was published late last night and perhaps you were unaware of, but thank you for noting there could be a political shell game to obfuscate who is actually in charge to avert legal issues. soibangla (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The equivocation is literally in the title: "Contradictory statements about Musk make it unclear who runs DOGE." It notes that the WH's statement "contradict[s] public statements by Trump." And if you quote the affidavit, I'll quote the judge, who said, Musk is "essentially a private citizen directing" DOGE. ByVarying | talk 04:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were ok with it. You literally used the phrase “he is in fact leading DOGE”. No one is doing reversals of anything, we’re just trying to use best practices as new facts become available to us.

My response to recentism is that the other option is WP:stonewalling Mikewem (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:stonewalling means that you think my argument isn't based on policy at all. Is that what you're saying? ByVarying | talk 04:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The RS have established a consensus that prevents us from using wikivoice to label him the lawful (de jure) leader.

Do you take issue with “de facto leader”? Mikewem (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I do take issue with "de facto leader." It gives undue weight to a handful of sources that came out last night into today which (1) equivocate themselves and couldn't on their own reflect any "consensus" among RS and (2) ignores the much larger number of RS that call him the "leader" of DoGE. I have said I don't think him being the leader of it is inconsistent with his purportedly not being the administrator of it (since RS consider him to be the one making policy decisions). As I said above also, the RS put forth to show that he is not the leader of DoGE don't exactly do that; each of them presents evidence one way and contrasts it with what the administration started saying yesterday. Notably, none of these sources (or the White House) claims a change in Musk's status occurred recently, so in whatever sense he was leading DoGE a week ago, we have every reason to think he still leads it in that sense today. My argument is that it is simply too soon to buck all the RS that have called him the leader of DoGE. ByVarying | talk 04:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

He was also de facto leader a week ago. Technically, we were wrong at that time for labeling him lower case leader, which is a nonspecific and therefore less useful term. We do the best with the facts available to us.

The average user will google “who is the leader of DOGE”, and they will expect wikivoice to reflect the results they see. Mikewem (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's another source [9] responding to the White House's claim that Musk isn't a DOGE employee. The NYT reports that "Mr. Musk was publicly appointed to lead DOGE by the president, and has described himself as having such a role repeatedly. But in a court filing on Tuesday, the Trump administration denied that Mr. Musk is a DOGE employee." This article variously says that DOGE is "championed by" Musk and that Musk is "at the helm of" that organization's work. The common thread among all these sources, including ones before Monday, is the idea that Musk could be leading, instructing, commanding DOGE, albeit informally. ByVarying | talk 04:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for “whose informal leader is”? Mikewem (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no preference between "de facto" and "informally" because informally is more ambiguous, but de facto is more inelegant. Another option, which I prefer better because it attributes this claim which so far is only coming from one place (the White House), is to leave "led by Elon Musk" and add something like "but the administration has said he is not employed by DOGE," or add a sentence, or a clause at the beginning or end of the next (which is conveniently about the legal nature of DOGE) saying the same. ByVarying | talk 05:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Is “informally led by” better? Mikewem (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

“Informal leader”?

Thats the language used on his bio page Mikewem (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

a White House official clarified that Elon Musk is not the administrator of the newly formed entity

"Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions," the affidavit said."

Charalambous, Peter (February 17, 2025). "Contradictory statements about Musk make it unclear who runs DOGE". ABC News.

"Doge technically reports to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles."

Lowell, Hugo (February 12, 2025). "Elon Musk appears with Trump and tries to claim 'Doge' team is transparent". The Guardian. soibangla (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The first source you have is a quotation from an affidavit. The mere fact that ABC published it doesn't mean they endorse the claim. The second is followed by the word "but," and continues "Musk has operated with virtually unchecked power as he radically reshapes the federal government," no doubt referring to the actions of DoGE. And how do you respond to the WP:RECENTISM concern, with the multitude of RS from last year to now talking about Musk as the leader of it? ByVarying | talk 02:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the standard for encyclopediac vs decorative images on articles?

Why is this cancelled IRS contract for (apparently) updating office cubicles in an IRS office worth including here?

Diff: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&curid=78318398&diff=1276445519&oldid=1276445029

@WeatherWriter: -- there is a huge volume of daily activity here, can we please beg you to start using edit summaries and explaining edits? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Might I suggest a variant of Hitchens's razor: What can be removed without explanation can also be re-introduced without explanation. Anne drew · talk · contribs 22:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It is an example of something DOGE did that was related to the IRS, so it is in the "Agencies, Departments and Offices of the United States targeted" section specific for the IRS. No particular reason. Just an IRS/DOGE-related image to add in a very image-bare section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE : ~10.8k

It hasn't been a month since Trump's second inauguration, and this article is already around ~10,861 words. Please consider splitting it into separate articles such as ones focusing on the #DOGE Structure, #Legal challenges and resistance, #Agencies, Departments and Offices of the United States targeted, #Reception, etc. Some1 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The largest section is Agencies, departments, and offices targeted so I believe that section should be the first to split. I propose the title US federal entities targeted by Elon Musk for the new article.

Why Musk in the title instead of Doge? Because the 85 citations within the section contain the name "Musk" 43 times, "Doge" 30 times, and the full name "Department of Government Efficiency" zero times. Per Wikipedia:TITLE it is better to name Musk in the article title. Fine Apples (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The article has now grown to ~11,492 words(!). Please feel free to create those subarticles. I doubt anyone would nominate them for deletion considering the size of this article justifies splitting. Some1 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have created a draft for US federal entities targeted by Elon Musk. It is a copy and past of what is here, but it should get us started. I added a short lead to start with, but please feel free to add of remove to it. Here is a link to it, I have submitted it for review to get things rolling. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently at the same time you were creating that draft, I created an article US federal entities targeted by Elon Musk. Sorry for the conflict; I'm new to this and I wasn't sure of the proper procedure for splitting an article. Fine Apples (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It is my first time too lol. lets keep your s and I will delete mine. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fine Apples Sorry I just saw that there was a notice in fine type that there was an article that had the same name and found out you had already created it. Sorry about that should have checked first. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for your support! Fine Apples (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I created a page for the legal battles, here is a link to it. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! The article title will probably have to be adjusted. Per WP:NCCAPS it shouldn't be made up of capitalized words beyond the first. I also think the title could be clearer. I suggest "Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE" or (better) "Legal challenges and resistance to Elon Musk's role in the US government." Fine Apples (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine Apples Ok thanks, I am not familiar with this so I will change it, thanks for pointing it out! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually just changed it! Sorry to keep stepping on your toes! Fine Apples (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have created a page for the Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment it can use some more in the lead right now. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 15:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2025

Simple. De facto? (Elon) Where is the evidence in the article. This is clearly conjecture and any excuse otherwise is clear bias and a lack of accountability. At minimum this statement with NO SUPPORTING evidence should be removed. I will be sharing this lack of credibility as well and the fact that this page requires an edit? I get but also shows wiki being left leaning instead of neutral. 173.168.103.228 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to group "Agencies, departments, and offices targeted" section by department.

To organize this section better, why not group affected agencies by department? For exmaple, the IRS is an agency of the Treasury deparment, so IRS could be a subheading under "Treasury", CDC is an agency of DHHS so CDC could be a subheading under "DHHS" and so forth. T g7 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. It would simplify the headings. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Sheriff U3 and @T g7 that this is a good idea. It should be implemented in the article US federal entities targeted by Elon Musk in which this content now lives. I don't know the structure of the federal government well enough to fully implement it myself, but I'll try to start. Fine Apples (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine Apples I can help with that some as I know some of the ones that are connected. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject DOGE

For anyone interested, Wikisource, a sister project to Wikipedia, has a new WikiProject for DOGE's released documents. Wikisource works to transcribe the documents, so they are easily accessible to others and searchable on Google and other search engines. Anyone interested is welcome to join. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Just to let you know, the WikiSource link you mentioned is malformed; there is no "Wikisource:WikiProject DOGE" (although there is a Wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject DOGE). E_F⁵ 17:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Say that ten times fast... Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

A bunch of articles forked out of this in the past few hours it appears -- please read/watch these

• Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government
• Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment
• United States Federal government targets of Elon Musk

Should the first two be one? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

They both are good sized articles currently, and they will grow as this is a current topic. So I think we can keep them both, but I am ok if they get merged. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 17:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I think these are well-intentioned edits, but I have several concerns:

1. the forked articles are not encyclopedic.

2. They conflate Elon Musk with DOGE.

3. The events are too recent to create a flurry of articles.

4. It also makes it difficult to get an overall sense of what DOGE is doing, if one has to be clicking back and forth between several articles.

The content should be back in this article. T g7 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No idea, I think the forks were premature, but someone made a fuss on the main talk page and people took it upon themselves to fork. It was inevitable but rushed. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason for the splits was article size. Though they did happen quite fast (just like DOGE lol) and will require some reworking. But I think that since it is already done and they are good sized articles by themselves. Also they can always be renamed, in which I agree that DOGE should be in the title and not Musk. I disagree with point #4 as I think they just need better summaries as each of the articles focus on a different point, and the main article can be more of a general summary of the other articles. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 21:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed article merge

Combine these:

• Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government
• Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment

To:

• Legal and public responses to the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk

Please respond on these talk pages:

• Talk:Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government#Proposed article merge
• Talk:Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government#Proposed article merge

Thoughts? Templates added to both. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Reception Section

The reception section is not only quite scant, it provides no source of any kind, and based on my own observations, the response has been more mixed or polarizing than "overwhelmingly negative with some Republican support." Many Republicans, libertarians, and independents support the agency's efforts, and Trump did receive a majority of the popular vote, while campaigning on a platform of government reform. (I'm aware the above sounds like original research but I'm not going to put it in the article, this is just the talk page.) I think the article's response section should reflect the actual public consensus, using reliable sources for that consensus, of course. Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Lincoln1809 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the Reception Section needs some work, if you have any RS sources add them in whit text. You can always change the current text and see if it holds up to other editors. The current text is not very good right now because we just split that section into a new one. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 20:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The articles are all in flux right now as people just forked a boatload of content out of this huge article. It was on track to be 500k within a week.

The response stuff and sourcing is all here:

• Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment

The response outside of far-right types has been overwhelmingly negative as seen there. Everyone is trying to catch up. WP:NPOV has no parity requirements. The super volume of WP:RS are universally negative. It's never Wikipedia's role to ever worry whether a pig wears lipstick. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

what are "Far-Right" types in your mind? Other then a couple of republican's the republican party has been quite happy with DOGE efforts to cut waste. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 21:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS of whomever supporting it, add it to Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment, the passage in this article must be downstream of that. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok will do. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 21:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You want to start with what is here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Response_to_Elon_Musk%27s_role_in_the_US_federal_government#Support

I see you accidentally recycled the now no longer usable claims of Democrats supporting it--it was two Democrats, Sanders for cutting military spending, and he walked it back hard since/opposes DOGE daily and Moskowitz, who didn't support it but joined the caucus was also critical. I don't know of any other Democrats on the record supporting it since it began. We can't say "some" Democrats support it, because the one who kinda did no longer does. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok I did not know he had walked out. Will remove it if you have not already. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 22:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I pulled it. If you can find any WP:RS that isn't based on pre-DOGE initiation remarks from notable (have an article on wikipedia) Democratic Party elected officials, I'd be happy to integrate them myself into that article, but I haven't found squat. This is really a remarkably unpopular thing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep you are right, other then two democrats that had some support of DOGE in dec, since then that has changed. I can't find any sources that say even one democrat supports DOGE currently. I will let you know if I find any though. I did add some more sources and reworded some the response section to reflect that. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 22:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This current edit by me on top of you @Sheriff U3: and @ThatVillagerGuy: is most accurate, cited, no weasel words and strictly WP:NPOV:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&oldid=1276815425#Reception

If that's all there is for Support from non-Republicans, that's all there is. We can't make something sound more supported than it is under WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person Good job! It is better then what I would have done. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 22:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE and government website/data removals

I've tagged the government data deleted section as possibly irrelevant to the article's subject. From what I've seen, the information removals were directly a result of the President's executive orders and are unrelated to DOGE.

If people here agree, that section should be removed, and the templates {{United States Department of Government Efficiency}} and {{Second presidency of Donald Trump}} should be updated accordingly. Thanks. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

pinging Very Polite Person and Max1298 since you've made edits related to this. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE is not referenced and the section should be removed soibangla (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I would remove it, there is no reason to have it. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 04:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, I have gone ahead and made my proposed changes. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Child article RM notifications

There are currently two requested move discussions in progress. Firstly Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government at Requested move 20 February 2025. Secondly Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government at Requested move 20 February 2025. Your involvement in discussions in appreciated. CNC (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Centralized RFC and straw poll for article names on forks

Attemping to centralize discussion so we can settle on final names for our first forks. We got these two current articles that split off here last night:

• Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government -- legal challenges, protests, stuff like that.
• Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government -- basically public response and opinion, support/lack thereof, stuff like that.

The opposition one is about actions taken and organizing against the DOGE thing; the response one is all the opinions/views of it and criticisms/limited support. They're different qualities and topics and both articles are too huge already to merge into one. Both articles are breaking out into multiple moves and new Talk page discussions about naming. Given this parent article has the most eyes, and the two are somewhat interwoven, let's figure out new names here as no one seems to like the present ones.

Please share your ideas and thinking. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person, I'm not sure if you intended to open this as an RfC, since you haven't done that. It's more appropriate to start with a discussion, per WP:RFCBEFORE. If people can't agree, then an RfC can be opened. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government new name ideas

• I propose: Challenges and opposition to the Department of Government Efficiency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Support The name sounds and looks good, and describes what the article is.

  Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 03:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  • I propose: Legal challenges to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government. I propose that the section about protests should be moved to the other article, leaving this one about legal challenges only. Further, I believe Musk should be named in the article title because many of the lawsuits in the article name him specifically. Reliable sources like the New York Times refer to "Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency" clearly showing that the name of Musk is primary over the name DOGE. Fine Apples (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

    I support Legal challenges to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government. "Legal challenges" is specific, and would already contain enough content for its own article. I also agree that specifying Musk is informative, especially since he is acting as the head of DOGE as well as its de facto spokesperson. Recent articles about DOGE in reliable sources like the Washington Post use the possessive "Musk's DOGE" in headlines when referring to DOGE at large. RolyPolyWombat (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

    I support a dedicated page to “Legal challenges”. Also support it being challenges to Musk and DOGE on the same page. It would be hard to separate the two. Dw31415 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• As I noted here, the link to Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government appears in the main DOGE article as Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE, and was moved without discussion. (@Fine Apples: you shouldn't have moved it without discussion.) I strongly oppose including Musk's name in the page name, as several of the lawsuits are not against Musk and/or include other people/agencies as defendants, and the bulk of the article's contents is not about Musk himself. I'm fine with the initial name, Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE, though I think Legal challenges and opposition to DOGE would be slightly better, since some of the opposition is not active resistance. Alternatively, move the content about the protests and Reddit into the Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government article (however it's renamed), and rename this one Legal challenges to the Department of Government Efficiency. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government new name ideas

• I propose: Public opinion toward the Department of Government Efficiency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Support The name accurately describes the article. And is much better then the current name. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I propose: Public opinion on Elon Musk's role in the US federal government. I think the Protests section from the other article belongs here instead. And here again, the article is not just about DOGE. It is also about public opinion on political appointees who are Musk's employees or former Employees. Many of the protests have targeted Tesla dealerships. Reliable sources use Musk's name as a primary identifier for the subject. Fine Apples (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

    I support Public opinion on Elon Musk's role in the US federal government. Much of the public sentiment being reported on does not separate attitudes toward Musk and DOGE at large. Many news articles already name Musk as the head of DOGE, implying that Musk is the decision maker and the public is responding to his decisions. In addition, if separate articles were to be written about the public's opinion about DOGE and Musk, there would be a lot of overlap that would necessitate duplicate efforts. RolyPolyWombat (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here are the external pages we would then have:

  - 2025 US federal deferred resignation program

  - 2025 United States federal mass layoffs

  - 2025 United States government online resource removals

  - Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE

  - Public opinion toward the Department of Government Efficiency

  - United States Federal government targets of Elon Musk

  Either "about" or "towards" (I would add an s) would be fine. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

It's unclear to me why those are two separate articles. They seem to have a lot of overlap, and when combined they are still well within the limits of WP:SIZERULE. The "opposition" article also is somewhat of a POV fork, which we should avoid. Would there be any appetite to merge them together? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE's press releases

Are we going to publish them all? If not, I see no point in having a table with any of them. A description would do. Besides, links do not link to the documents, just more wiki tables. No real document has been published anyway. They're screenshots. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Are any of them even individually compliant with WP:Notability? Treat the lot like we do the flood of executive orders at List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump perhaps. Even just because it's something the allegedly wealthiest person ever or some purported POTUS does... does not inherently grant notability. We have no need to share the fine details of each. If they rise to the level of notability they can get their own article. Truncate and move on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

the documents are of dubious veracity and value, they are primary sources, and they excessively occupy scarce article space. I believe they should be removed. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

A separate article on this was AfDed(http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_documents_released_by_the_Department_of_Government_Efficiency) with a consensus to merge. Individual documents should not be on the article IMO, just a few sentences would be good (and also potentially a bit about the savings controversy). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There was no consensus to merge. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Selbsportrait, the aforementioned AfD was literally closed by an uninvolved editor with, "The result was merge‎ to Department of Government Efficiency...I see a consensus among those who addressed this question not to keep this as a standalone page, and broad support among them for the proposed merge." I know you voted to delete, but there was indeed a consensus and it was closed according to that consensus. I recommend you read WP:CONSENSUS to get a better understanding of it. Whether you think it should be deleted from this article is still relevant, but it is an opinion of the minority currently. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually voted to keep the page. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Man, I really need to check before speaking. I apologize. I struck through that part of the previous comment I made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Add the 8B "document" to your "list" and you'll be absolved of all your sins. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It is already listed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. Now, where are the newsies to demonstrate the notability of your other selection, for instance the "Termination of a $222,145 USDT Contract for Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing"?

Also, where can we find the list of what you digitized? Selbsportrait (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Following the merge, I have altered the wording of the section. The table now reflects and shows as a "dynamic list", i.e. one that will never satisfy completeness. Items on the list should have a secondary RS source and not just a DOGE source. So far, all items on the list do have a secondary RS source associated with them. Individual items, in my opinion, should be discussion for removal (or possible addition) individually. The documents as a whole are indeed notable, with ABC News even calling out an exact number released (1,127; sourced in the article now). This would be the best course of action. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Dynamic list" is weasel wording to escape the fact that the act of listing hides what is rhetorically being done by it, and whether the press releases have secondary sources is irrelevant.

  I recommend you read http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Provenance to get a better understanding of what is a document. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources." sounds like a sales pitch to me. soibangla (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)To be more specific, following RS, they are actually "federal contracts": "DOGE this week posted on its website a list of more than 1,000 federal contracts" -ABC News. Either way a contract is a type of document, which is why it is allowed on Wikisource. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Also, dynamic lists are perfectly allowed on Wikipedia, which is why there is a template for them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'll toss my two cents in on this. "You can help by adding missing items with RS" signals to me "Keep it up to date", and doesn't feel like a sales pitch (What is it trying to sell?) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  it is trying to sell a deeply and inherently misconceived side project created exclusively by an editor in this discussion who appears to believe that secondary sources mentioning the mere existence of primary sources means the documents have been somehow deemed credible, in the face of secondary sources in the article showing DOGE has made many "errors" soibangla (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Respectfully, you need to stop trying to sell the idea of an NPOV violation. You did so in the AFD and got consensus overruled. That opinion is yours and you are allowed to have it. But it seems like every comment you have regarding the list is, more or less, this is bad and biased and needs to be removed ASAP. You keep trying to single me out, even in that comment saying “created exclusively by an editor”, despite getting overruled in your attempt to delete it by a consensus of keeping the list, but merging it into this article. I say this sincerely, please read WP:1AM and stop trying to say NPOV violation by a single editor. Focus on how to improve it, without deletion, since consensus says the list is allowed to exist. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  P.S. — Here is a tip. You just said, “in the face of secondary sources in the article showing DOGE has made many "errors". Good! There are RS specifically about errors int he documents. That alone means those documents should be listed and in the details section, the RS-stated errors should be mentioned! That is how you can improve the article and fix any possible NPOV violations you think exist. If there really are RS saying there is an “error”, then list the document and subsequent error! Simple as that! That is what a dynamic list is. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Work to improve it and fix any of that biases. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  so now we have a new source added:

  "300 of these were contract terminations."

  which contradicts DOGE:

  "DOGE released 1,127 federal contracts that span 39 different federal departments and agencies DOGE says had been cut."

  startin' to get the picture yet? soibangla (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, and? That is something the paragraph before the table can clearly explain. If any of those documents are specifically called out, then sure, they can be listed. For example, the supposed $8 billion contract DOGE listed that was actually $8 million is one I just added to the table, sourced by ABC News. Get the picture? Paragraph = General information. Table = specific documents called out by RS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  mentioning the mere existence of primary sources means the documents have been somehow deemed credible

  That's not even an/the issue, though? @WeatherWriter:, really--we should only be including notable documents, not all documents. They really need to be notable. Look at the "DOGE people" section. I've seen a lot more names on social media, an order of magnitude more. But they're not meeting any level of WP:Notability yet, so they aren't on the table. The same applies to any/all publications by this DOGE.

  Just because DOGE published them doesn't make them notable, or else we'd have another +100,000,000 articles for all the documents the US government has ever put out. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Very Polite Person, this is not directed at you: Why is everyone twisting every fucking thing I say. Like geez. I legit mentioned, in this very discussion, that only specific documents sourced by RS, not DOGE sources alone should be in the table. Everyone keeps thinking I want to list every DOGE document. No I fucking don’t. Can y’all (and I mean everyone) get that through their heads. I have mentioned “RS” several times in this discussion and everyone keeps thinking I mean “we should list every document”. Geez. I’ll spell it out plain and simple to answer Very Polite Person and everyone else : WeatherWriter’s Response: We should only list documents that are specifically called out by a secondary reliable source. Simple as that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hey, we're good. I think everyone is (extremely unsurprisingly) hyper-anxious around this topic and this page at the moment as we watch fucking night fall all around us. See my reply below for a proposed easy compromise that was pitched. It seems fair/easy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  You can help by adding missing items with RS

  To be fair, that's a non-negotiable requirement... no WP:RS, no getting into the article! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  How about WP:NOTABILITY? Selbsportrait (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yep, see my last reply before this. It's exactly like the DOGE people section. Same standards. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  OK. So we all agree that we need (a) the document digitized; (b) a citation for the original press release; and (c) citations indicating notability?

  Then all we need is a cutoff to make sure that the "dynamic list" takes the real estate of a subsection (i.e. no more) and we're good. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  RS that merely confirm DOGE released a document, without analysis of its veracity? soibangla (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Because DOGE has made so many errors and misrepresentations of their findings, its documents are of such dubious credibility that at best they should be relegated to a See also link to the Wikisource project WeatherWriter created as a side project. soibangla (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That's actually a fair suggestion not on that criteria but just on the fact that we don't list publications in tables by basically any government body. Does anyone even have such an example?

DOGE is irrelevant, as is Trump, as is Elon, as are any of you reading this reply, compared to site guidelines and policies. This article will be handled like any other article.

@WeatherWriter: you good with this? Would save a lot of pointless headache, we get an archival on the other side linked prominently here, and any notable documents can get put in properly into prose based on notability of the document--notability is NOT inherited. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Quick note, DOGE URLs (i.e. specific contract URLS) are impossible to archive, even on the Wayback Machine. Wikipedia/Wikisource discord had a discussion on that recently. The actual DOGE URLS are the equivalent to “dead links”. Meaning, you cannot actually open them without first going to doge.gov and then opening them. Noting, this excludes the ones released on the X account. The Wikisource links are, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent to the primary source link, given the “dead link” archival nature for the specific contract URLS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither archive.org nor archive.is can archive them? Why? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It is something doing on in the code behind the scenes on DOGE’s end. For example, this DOGE-related item fully on Wikisource has this specific URL. You can click it and it “works”, but only shows a blank page. Now, you can actually find that specific document as it was one of 16 created on 1/23/2025 and if you click the link on doge.gov/savings, it will actually take you to the page. It is some weird code thing and currently, there is no way around it. Wikipedia & Wikisource discord tried for some time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk messed up Twitter's API or obfuscated the redirection willingly. Either way it's hard to archive tweets nowadays. To build an archive out of tweets won't work. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

…These are not tweets? The aforementioned one was written by the IRS and DOGE and it was not released on Twitter/X. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The same logic applies. What you call a "specific contract URLS" are actually database requests. What if the database changes? In case of contracts cancelled by kids who have no idea how to preserve any archives, this might get tough.

For a database entry, one would need its URI:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier Selbsportrait (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

What is your source that they are "database requests"? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"LaunchWebPage.jsp?command=execute&requestid" Selbsportrait (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, Wikisource links on Wikipedia tables are not new. For example on List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump’s table, all the “Absolute EO#” clickable links do to Wikisource versions of the documents. Personally, I do not see a problem doing the same here, especially given the difficulty in archiving the actually contracts. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that EOs have their own official pages. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE documents do indeed have specific URLs, so they also have specific government pages. If you are referring to Wikipedia articles, then several of the EOs do not have Wikipedia articles and only Wikisource links (example is “Unleashing American Energy”). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The URLs are not from a government website. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.fpds.gov/common/jsp/LaunchWebPage.jsp?command=execute&requestid=240083315&version=1.5 – notice the .gov? See the discussion above for why the page will be "blank" when you click on the URL. If you say that is not a government URL, then please explain what non-government entity holds fpds.gov. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Your URL gives me a blank page.

Cookie? Selbsportrait (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The following is from earlier in the discussion:

Quick note, DOGE URLs (i.e. specific contract URLS) are impossible to archive, even on the Wayback Machine. Wikipedia/Wikisource discord had a discussion on that recently. The actual DOGE URLS are the equivalent to “dead links”. Meaning, you cannot actually open them without first going to doge.gov and then opening them. Noting, this excludes the ones released on the X account. The Wikisource links are, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent to the primary source link, given the “dead link” archival nature for the specific contract URLS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Neither archive.org nor archive.is can archive them? Why? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It is something doing on in the code behind the scenes on DOGE’s end. For example, this DOGE-related item fully on Wikisource has this specific URL. You can click it and it “works”, but only shows a blank page. Now, you can actually find that specific document as it was one of 16 created on 1/23/2025 and if you click the link on doge.gov/savings, it will actually take you to the page. It is some weird code thing and currently, there is no way around it. Wikipedia & Wikisource discord tried for some time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

A simple "yes, EOs have their own official pages while DOGE still needs to clean up its act" would have done. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully that explains why the URL is blank. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Solution?

The above discussion turned into a big mess with I think 4-5 ongoing and unique topics. Let me see if everyone is ok with this specific solution. If you are opposed to any of these points, please specifically mention which point you are opposed to.

1. General information regarding DOGE's documents (i.e. numbers released & how many are good/how many are bad & DOGE statements vs actual release contradictions & RS/DOGE contradictions go in the paragraph(s) before the table of federal contracts.
2. The table of federal contracts released by DOGE is a Dynamic List: "May never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. Help by adding missing items with reliable sources."
3. The table of federal contracts released by DOGE includes only contracts that have been specifically called out/named by at least one RS source.
4. Items listed in the table of federal contracts released by DOGE may not be listed with only DOGE-originating sources (whether from a DOGE X account, doge.gov, or a fpds.gov-specific "dead link" URL.
5. The table of federal contracts released by DOGE include a Wikisource link to view the document; specifically as the DOGE-released documents on FPDS are unarchivable on the Wayback Machine and are "dead link"-equivalents if not viewed / accessed directly from doge.gov/savings.
6. The table is not going to be a list of every federal contract released by DOGE. Only those specifically called out by a secondary reliable source.
7. Wikipedia is a "work in progress", which means if a federal contract is missing from the list, editors should boldly add it.
8. If editors believe a specific federal contract listed in the table should be removed or added and there is a debate about it, a discussion should occur on the inclusion of that specific federal contract and the specific contract's notability for the list. It should then only be removed or added following a community consensus.
9. To spell it out: The table will only contain items which are specifically mentioned by a secondary reliable source.

To me, this sounds like the most reasonable way to go about this table. Does this sound reasonable to everyone else? Courtesy pings to participates in the discussion so far: @Selbsportrait:, Very Polite Person, Soibangla, Wildfireupdateman. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing reasonable with what you're trying to accomplish.

Having a secondary source is necessary, but not sufficient for an entry to make the list. And the dynamic aspect of it means that it may be dropped out if other more notable items resurface. "Dynamic" doesn't mean that you can make it outgrow the size of everything else on the page.

Think of it as a Top Ten. So far you got *one* notable item. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Selbsportrait: You need to re-read the guidelines on what "dynamic lists" are (see link above). If it is listed, it wouldn't just be removed if "more notable" items are found. That's not how it works. For example, Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August – 31 December 2024) is a dynamic list. Random items are not just going to be dropped from the list. All "dynamic" means is that every item is not listed. It is not a "top 10". Not even close. That aforementioned timeline/dynamic list is 388,000 bytes in size/17,000+ words in size. Any complaints you have about the dynamic list, bluntly, is just a lack-of-knowledge about what dynamic lists are. "Having a secondary source is necessary, but not sufficient for an entry to make the list." That is a reasonable issue that you could have. We will have to agree to disagree on the time being on that RS is not sufficient to have an item be on the list. I would love to see other people responses on whether an RS is or is not enough for an item to make the list. But yeah, you actually do not fully understand what a "dynamic" list is, as nothing you said about them is actually true. For example, List of ethnic slurs is a dynamic list. Is it only the top 10 or even top 50 ethnic slurs? Nope! It just means not every slur is listed. Only the ones sources by an RS. In the case of that article, only 1 RS is needed for inclusion on the list. That is what dynamic lists are about.

For Example: Let's assume (pretend) out of 1,000 publications by DOGE, RS talked about 75 of them. The table would have those 75. The rest of the documents (925 of them) are not notable for the table as RS did not mention them. That is why it would be marked as a "dynamic list". Hopefully that explains what a "dynamic list" is and why there are thousands of them on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You really need to stop giving unsolicited advice. Look at this list:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Dynamic_lists

Give me three examples that looks like what you're trying to do right now.

That is, a list of items that (a) appear as a section and that (b) grows each day (c) for more than a year.

Best of luck! Selbsportrait (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I tried to help and explain how you were just blatantly wrong (most likely just from not understanding what "dynamic list" means on Wikipedia. Guess you do not want to understand it. Best of luck! I will wait for others to reply. For the record, I strongly disagree with everything you just said and I will be opposed to any removals you do that are unilateral, without a consensus and discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You only explained how your interpretation of a dynamic list doesn't apply to what you're trying to do.

I'm still waiting for these three examples. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Examples: (1) YouTube suspensions, (2) Urban rail transit in China, (3) Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, (4) The Daily Toreador, (5) Pseudoathletic appearance (6) List of treaties. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

(1) is not a section, but an independent page

(2) is not a section, but an independent page

Need I go on? Selbsportrait (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's say I do. (2) contains this hat:

"This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (November 2023)"

Here would be the dynamic list:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Urban_rail_transit_in_China#Rapid_transit

It has about 50 entries. Now, imagine 500. It's not that complex. Selbsportrait (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

1) the table simply occupies too much space in a space-constrained article

2) it contains DOGE primary sources, only the mere existence of which are noted in secondary sources, with no qualitative verification

3) in this and related articles, DOGE has been shown to make false/misleading assertions of its alleged findings, hence DOGE is not a reliable source

4) you are pitching a side project you exclusively created

5) the content should be removed and your Wikisource content relegated to a See also link, rather than at the very top of the lead, just under the infobox, where it was previously placed a day or two ago, and which I removed soibangla (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

WeatherWriter's responses:

1) Voted that way by community consensus. I was against the merge and wished to keep it a stand-alone article for this format. Consensus rules to merge it. Nothing to do about that.

2) I'm not sure the problem. WP:PRIMARY indicates primary sources are allowed to be used/sourced and there is indeed secondary sources for the items in the table? I'm actually not sure what the problem is that you have in this issue.

3) A discussion at WP:RSN needs to happen. Whether DOGE is reliable or unreliable at this point has no formal consensus, so nothing you can do about that right now.

4) Wikisource is not something I "exclusively" created. This is yet another jab towards me. I am very tempted to report you for personal attacks, especially in a CTOPIC notice. Please stop. Please. Secondly, several other editors have stated "Wikisource" is a good idea for this.

5) Content removal will not happen without a formal new discussion to do so given consensus was very clear to keep the chart...WP:1AM situation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Perfect. Then no new addition to the list will happen without consensus either. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't stop new additions directly as Wikipedia specifically tells editors to be bold and edit content. Any new additions, however, you are welcome to remove/challenge and then wait for a consensus for any re-additions. I will caution that reverting to prove a point is against Wikipedia's behavior guidelines. So if you just remove every bold addition, some may see it as disruptive. I would be more than happy to hold discussion for any new addition if necessary though! hat is actually part of the solution I mentioned above! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Then you can't stop deletions when Wikipedia specifically tells editors to be bold and edit content either.

Why are you always trying to hide behind rules? There are no rules! Selbsportrait (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, to me, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. I wish you the best of luck. I will no longer attempt to discuss this with you are we will have to agree to disagree. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

"To me": spoken like a true encyclopedist! Selbsportrait (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not say you created Wikisource. soibangla (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You keep calling it my "side project". I'm asking you to stop associating content with the editor. Focus on the content itself, not the editor. Please. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Tone policing is also ad hominem, you know. Selbsportrait (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

is it untrue you alone created a Wikisource project with an accompanying article? soibangla (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I am taking a short wikibreak from this discussion. You have a vendetta against me and any improvements I seem to make to the Wikimedia projects. See y'all later. Yes, I wrote Wikisource content regarding DOGE things, I was actually invited to created even more content and contribute to the DOGE portal by another editor. Either way, see y'all soon. I'll be back later as I do not want to get hot headed in this discussion, given I have am talking to a troll and another with a vendetta to call out "me" as the author on anything I write. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Focus on the content itself, not the editor. Please. Selbsportrait (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

there's a DOGE portal, too? wow soibangla (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

WeatherWriter: A discussion at WP:RSN needs to happen. Whether DOGE is reliable or unreliable at this point has no formal consensus, so nothing you can do about that right now.

I implore you to take DOGE to RSN. soibangla (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

WeatherWriter: I'm not sure the problem. WP:PRIMARY indicates primary sources are allowed to be used/sourced and there is indeed secondary sources for the items in the table? I'm actually not sure what the problem is that you have in this issue.

I have repeatedly made the serious problem clear: googling for secondaries that simply mention the existence of DOGE primaries is woefully insufficient if the secondaries do not actually substantiate what the primaries claim. this is tantamount to accepting whatever the government tells us, and I trust we don't want to do that. can you show secondaries that substantiate DOGE claims? I ask again: can you show secondaries that substantiate DOGE claims? if not, loading up the content with supposedly affirming secondaries that readers may not closely inspect, is deeply misleading. soibangla (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel like 3O would be the best place to go for discussions like this. Maybe a formal-ish RFC would help. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Quick note, Soibangla has been indefinitely topic blocked (Arbcom action) from post-1992 U.S. political articles and subsequently will be unable to respond any further in this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Why the cut-off year is 1992? Most people consider that 2001 has been more of a "turning point" year than 1992.198.163.192.143 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure, but 1992 was the year when Clinton got elected. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  It has to do with Wikipedia’s aversion to libel. That is the reason for the policy WP:BLP. People working in politics pre-1992 are less likely to be still living. One can also imagine that the broad editor community (based on age) is less likely to have been engaged and active in politics pre-1992 (because they weren’t adults yet).

  It doesn’t have anything to do with a specific event or a specific politician, but is just a reflection of how much elapsed time there has been. Mikewem (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)