Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

Bias

Seems really biased the way this article is written. Only seems negative and left leaning. 101.99.181.204 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you're not pitching in to improve it? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it not the case that while recommending reductions in force or budget cuts is legally permissible, the final decisions on such matters rest with Congress or the President, depending on the specific authority granted by the U.S. Constitution or current federal laws? Furthermore, the approach taken by DOGE (or any external actor) and Elon Musk's staff appears to be part of an advisory process, as their recommendations would not have the power to directly implement such cuts without further legislative or executive action? MaynardClark (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is, from my relatively ignorant point of view, that we don't know what Elon Musk's legal relationship with the administration, we don't know what his cadres' relationship is, we don't know how the power relationship between DOGE and the OPM and the agencies has played out, was it advice or orders? It looks like the recent court ruling will bring this arena under the aegis of FOIA, so we may get some answers, but I wouldn't hold my breath. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC).

These entries essentially regurgitate a line of thinking and then link to all of t articles from which the story was concocted. one has the time to unbias something that a hundred other individuals have lunged on to make a full-fledged definition of a thing within days of its existence. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia which is unfortunate.o Jawz101 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you 2603:8090:1B02:2B52:C1E2:EE79:8F95:9094 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is "Biased" against the League of Extraordinarily Soy Redditors only in the sense that it documents the things it says and does. If those things put Musk's epic meme agency in a negative light, then that's on him, not the people who made the article. Furthermore, I don't think the editors should be accepting criticism from somebody who repeatedly wrote "woke is dead!!!!" on the talk section of Claudia Sheinbaum's page and repeatedly added it periodically over the course of an entire day every time it was removed. TheGrassWhistle (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Elon Musk, not even close. But the fact remains, we have to remain committed to NPOV. For example, the "Implementing Project 2025." I agree, yes, that is probably what is happening. But it remains that there is not a clear, official, purely factual connection where the Trump admin is looking at project 2025 and directly implementing it. We need to soften up the language and apply a neutral point of view. Additionally, to fully comply with NPOV, we need to add all non fringe opinions and ideas -- there are reputable opinions from places like the National Review, WSJ, and Hoover that need to be added to apply due weight and NPOV rules. I will soon start research and make additions to this page. Again. I am actively against what is happening; but the fact remains that we MUST provide a neutral point of view and apply due weight. Sound good? One more thing -- would be a good idea to make this article semi-protected due to contentious topics arbitration remedy. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"it remains that there is not a clear, official, purely factual connection"

A connection is inferential, not factual. And "official" is doing too much work here. What's the logic here: we would be able to say that DOGE implements Project 2025 if and only if the Trump admin says so? Even then, Trump campaign officials acknowledged the Project 2025 aligned well with Agenda 47, and Russ Vought looks like an "official" quite alright.

There are diminishing returns to bending over backwards. Selbsportrait (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. But as a wikipedian, I still have to present the clear facts as they are. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Everyone does. No one owns neutrality. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, but let's get down to specifics. I want to change the "Implementation of Project 2025" title to "Similarities to Project 2025." I also want to add a section on some of the "waste" they have identified and what money they have saved. Ofc I'm not going to use their bs statistics, but there is documented waste (from reliable sources.) I'm also going to add some see alsos for some government spending scandals. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright. You have not read the page.

"Similarity" isn't a function.

There's already the section you want to add.

Next time, try not to portray your beliefs as if they were truths. Selbsportrait (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologize, you're right. I disagree with your characterization of what Project 2025 is, though. Let's start at the beginning. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, that has been publishing Mandates for Leadership policy recommendations for almost a decade. Think tanks publish policy books like this all of the time; for example, the Center for American Progress published Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President. [1] There are more recent examples, like the other Mandates for Leadership that the Heritage Foundation has published--I can't link to it bc of spam blacklist. This is a thing that think tanks do. Project 2025 is one of those things. Project 2025 is not unique, and we need to talk about it more like what it is, a set of policy recommendations (that I vehemently disagree with) that the Heritage Foundation wants to happen. Conservative ideas and interpretations of the law exist. If we're going to talk about Project 2025 like this, to maintain NPOV on like Obama's wikipedia page we'd have to cover all of the former CAP people who worked for his administration and write about every time someone from CAP tried to advise the Obama campaign or administration. Again, I just want to say this; I am vehemently against everything that the Heritage Foundation stands for, and what Donald Trump is doing as president. But we have to be neutral. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"Let's start at the beginning"

Let's start with that instead: Russ Vought is the acting administrator of OMB. He's the guy behind Schedule F during the first admin, and he wrote the Project 2025 chapter laying out what DOGE has actually been doing. We have evidence that Musk and Vought worked together, and Musk and Ramaswamy's plan, in which they promised to work with OMB, has recently been added. They even use the same "anti-democratic" argument. Notwithstanding that Vance and Roberts are collaborators, and that Vance explicitly says that DOGE's main function is to facilitate the total control of the executive branch under the president, which is a core tenet of the unitary theory promoted by Project 2025.

We also have reliable sources that can put two and two together. What more do you want exactly? As far as I am concerned, the tone of that section is as neutral as could be, and the facts speak for themselves.

And you just added three pages that don't mention DOGE. How can they be related? Selbsportrait (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I know that. We can say that. (Side tangent -- for example, take Michelle Jolin. She was the Co-Author of the Change for America policy book. She worked in the Obama White House. But it's not like we're saying "The Obama Administration was dead-set on applying the exact policies worked on by the Center for American Progress, and applying the Change for America plan.") But we cannot say "implementation of project 2025." That reads like Harris campaign lit. We can say "Similarities to Project 2025" or "Mirroring of Project 2025" or something. That title would also match the actual content of the section better, too. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If you like "mirroring", then I can offer you "emulation". It's functionally equivalent.

Deal? Selbsportrait (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Deal. :D AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Good. In return, I underlined the affinity between Vance's "most important" part of DOGE and the unitary theory espoused in Project 2025. The association with Roberts is relevant (if only to underline that at least one person in the administration is aware of what's going on) but not crucial.

Writing subsections with inverted pyramids might have helped. Selbsportrait (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, Twinkle screwed up but I undid the rollback. Anyways -- I added a link to Filipovic's page and added a sentence about Trump campaign's denial of knowledge about Proj. 2025. A "this is widely disputed" sentence after that one I just added may be necessary. Yeah this is quite the frankenstein article lol AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Trump's denial has already been noted later in the text. Reading the whole section before jumping in usually helps. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I know -- I did -- just noted lots of text in between and wanted to provide due weight sooner AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

About the "Broadcasting the Trump Agenda" section, I think that it should be sm like "Broadcasting DOGE's Agenda" or "Broadcasting DOGE actions" because the section is about the bulletin wall etc, which broadcasts what DOGE has been doing, not the Trump agenda. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Second thing we need to add a lot more due weight for the emulation of project 2025; there's like one line about the separation of Trump and Proj 2025, and the rest of that paragraph is disputing that. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"which broadcasts what DOGE has been doing"

It does more than that.

"add a lot more due weight"

That's not what what it means.

OK. I've had enough. Goodbye. Selbsportrait (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

what did I do? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Good deal. I think you both have good points Czarking0 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

see WP:BRIE. being right is not enough Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

lol understood AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Vought founded the Center for Renewing America (CRA), where he drafted executive orders, regulations, and memos consistent with the ideas presented by Project 2025. I think this is an understatement. Vought is one of the main figures of Project 2025. The article goes on to say Vought was on Project 2025 advisory board, and developed its 180-day playbook, a set of actions to take in the Trump administration's first six months, which the project described as "a comprehensive concrete transition plan for each agency." In multiple speeches, Vought swore to put career civil servants "in trauma". I think we can just cut the first one? Czarking0 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, for readability. CRA may be important though, as the medium through which Vought did some of those things, but I agree yes the second part of that is quite redundant. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

IP I think the main issue you're seeing is a reflection of a lack of positive coverage in reliable sources... DOGE has been kind of a shitshow and that is reflected in the reporting even from erstwhile conservative outlets like the WSJ. IMO if there were more successes and DOGE were better run there would be more positive coverage but we can't just wish it into existance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point lol. Yes, DOGE has been a shitshow, but I'm more focused on the whole "implementing project 2025" thing, which I don't think represents sources accurately; most of these sources talk about the similar policies, etc. The language is too assertive in that section in some places, and are misrepresentations of sources and of fact. Like we need to attribute opinions say things like "BLANK describes...BLANK as.....", especially when the cited source is an opinion article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Huge predicted federal tax revenue drop, partly due to DOGE cutbacks

This Washington Post article notes that "Treasury Department and IRS officials are predicting a decrease of more than 10 percent in tax receipts by the April 15 deadline ... That would amount to more than $500 billion in lost federal revenue." DOGE isn't the only contributing factor, but the factors do include "DOGE-driven workforce reductions." I couldn't figure out an appropriate place to introduce this info, as there doesn't seem to be a section devoted to DOGE's side effects, as contrasted with its intended functions. Should there be a short section on significant side-effects in which DOGE plays a notable role? This isn't the only significant effect. Others include: huge global health and mortality effects from the cuts to USAID, loss of US soft power abroad in connection with the USAID cuts, difficulties accessing government services (e.g., getting through to the IRS help line, needing to go in person to SSA and wait in long lines there rather than getting help by phone). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

These connections have been shipped to the Response page.

When real outcomes will be tallied, I suppose we could expand the Actions section to include consequences. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort through intertwined issues.

The Functions section of this DOGE article addresses a mix of things. Some are publicly-identified intended actions/effects (explicit goals). It also includes some sub-sections that are more about goals that haven't been publicly identified, but that RSs are reporting on, such as implementation of Project 2025. The section also mentions a few actions taken (e.g., "As of March 2025, DOGE has secured access to at least seven sensitive federal databases, and it has inserted itself into more than 20 agencies"), where one might think of the latter as "to what extent has this goal been met?" There is no sub-section addressing anticipated (side-)effects that haven't been publicly identified as goals (e.g., one can anticipate that cutting IRS staff will make it easier for the wealthy to cheat and harder for the average person to reach someone on the help line, and Trump and Musk may have a private goal of making it easier for the wealthy to get away with not paying 100% of their taxes owed, but they're certainly not saying so, much less putting it on paper in an EO or elsewhere). So it might make sense to rearrange this section a bit and/or retitle some headers, making clearer which aspects have been identified by officials, and which have been covered by RSs despite officials not identifying them.

The Actions within federal government section of this article addresses actions to date. But there is no sub-section specifically addressing effects to date as distinct from actions (e.g., withdrawing USAID staff and cutting its funding are actions, whereas the negative impact on the health of the global poor is an effect, as is the decrease in US soft power internationally).

The Response to DOGE article addresses reactions: polling, things that have been said in response (support and criticism), and things that have been done in response (actions of support and opposition, such as protests and resignations; I don't know if there have been any actions of support). But reactions to DOGE are distinct from the intended/actual/anticipated effects of DOGE. If that article is meant to include not only reactions but also effects, then it should probably be reorganized to reflect that.

There are real effects already. The question is whether the Main place to address them is in the Response to DOGE article, or in its own article, or in its own section here, as distinct from Actions.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's how I try to distinguish what goes into functions and what goes into actions: a function is an ongoing set of operations that make the system what it is. An action is a series of operations that terminate. A function is the goal that satisfy the actions.

Sending an email is an action. To terminate an employee is also an action. To dismantle "the fourth power" and to facilitate the Unitary theory is a function. There is no real dichotomy there. It depends on how we design the levels of description. It also depends on the space we have on the page.

If consequences follow from specific actions, we could add them in their respective sections. (The logic being: they did A, B happened.) If the actions have not been covered, we could create them. But if there are actions that follow from a set of non-coordinated actions, we should rather add a Consequences section, after Actions.

We're currently having a similar difficulty with the Definition and Executive Orders sections. The ambiguity follows from the orders, and from how DOGE is justifying its stonewalling. Whereas I would vote for a Consequences section (easier to manage for us and to find for readers), I would vote for a single "Shades of DOGE" section, with legal and semantic issues. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone created an Impact on the public section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Impact_on_the_public

I added the IRS estimate, and also added WaPo's report from yesterday. These notes can be expanded. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I have a concern about how DOGE is linked to the projected $500B revenue drop. The cited Washington Post article only broadly mentions general concerns about IRS staffing disruptions potentially affecting revenue, without quantifying or providing evidence of DOGE's direct impact. In fact, it explicitly notes these disruptions wouldn't meaningfully affect this year's receipts (2024 tax year filings), as DOGE wasn't operational during that time.

If we remove the unsupported implications and misleading revenue figure, the statement essentially becomes: *"There are general concerns about IRS staffing disruptions related to DOGE potentially affecting revenue."* But stated this way, it's so vague and trivial it doesn't seem to meaningfully belong anywhere, especially under an "Impact" section.

I2T2I (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"If we remove the unsupported implications and misleading revenue figure"

The implication is that cutting staff will reduce tax audits. The figure expresses the IRS' own estimate.

Not sure you can sidestep it by begging two questions in one go. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

DOGE plans to rebuild and test Social Security code in months, not years

Makena Kelly (March 28, 2025). "DOGE Plans to Rebuild SSA Code Base in Months, Risking Benefits and System Collapse". Wired.

Even though at least some experts recommend years.

@NuclearSpuds: , thank you for the nice compliment. My plan is to get a 2nd source, and then summarize it just right down the middle! within parameters of human error of course  : > ) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I added a 2nd ref. This might become major plot line, or it might not. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Starlink bit

I said I was moving this bit:

DOGE installed a Starlink user terminal at the White House complex which raised conflict of interest concerns due to Starlink being a subsidiary of Musk-owned SpaceX. In response the White House said that the terminal was donated by Starlink and approved by legal counsel and the United States Secret Service. Pengelly, Martin. "Elon Musk's Starlink internet service installed in White House". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 March 2025.Mac, Ryan; Sullivan, Eileen; Haberman, Maggie; Conger, Kate. "Elon Musk's Starlink Expands Across White House Complex". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 March 2025. GSA has subscribed to Musk's internet service for its Washington offices in mid-February."Elon Musk's Starlink has a growing footprint in the federal government". NBC News. 2025-03-08. Retrieved 2025-03-19.

But I have no idea where to put it. Seems anecdotal, even if we add the Stanley connection (got caught on the roof by WH security). Selbsportrait (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as significant as the COI concerns are the WH security/intelligence concerns noted here. As for where to put it, perhaps it would be better to place it in Response to the Department of Government Efficiency instead, in both the Conflicts of Interest and Security sections. The Response section in this article might also be enlarged a bit to reflect the wider variety of concerns that have been raised, drawing on the section headings in the Response to the Department of Government Efficiency article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So many problems

Hello all!

Essentially, we have a lot of work to do. This article is 10,000+ words long. That's a bit nuts. Besides that, large portions of this article are dense and difficult to read, and there's lots of redundancy. This article is also pretty bloated, and I'm advocating for the splitting or even deletion of the members table,since it fails to pass the 10 year test (besides key players), and Wikipedia isn't a newspaper per policy. We also need to fix some of the encyclopedic tone issues here, and general organization is clumsy. I'm going to propose a split for the members section, or at least move it to the bottom. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I reorganized the article, feel free to continue, especially moving the actions outside of the federal government section below the actions inside section. I have to go right now. Functions and actions moved up and pushed together. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree to the splitting or deletion of the members table, the article is already too long. I would say preferably a splitting, considering the amount of sources, but no strong opinion. If we go for the splitting, which title would be better: "List of Department of Government Efficiency members", or "List of DOGE members"? Alenoach (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I we go members (consensus leans that way) I think we'd do the full name so there isn't confusion with the meme coin or the meme itself; there's probably something in the MoS, I'll go look. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it would be better to split the whole "Workforce" section rather than just the table. We could name the new article "Workforce of the Department of Government Efficiency". Alenoach (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I applied the split, here is the new article: Workforce of the Department of Government Efficiency. I replace the DOGE article's section with an excerpt. Alenoach (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Just as predicted. Sigh. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I missed the more thorough discussion below (the "Split" template was pointing to this discussion), sorry. If there is consensus that it would be better, it's still possible to rename the new article "List of Department of Government Efficiency members" and split only the list. But I believe it makes more sense to split the whole "workforce" section, as it's a separate topic, and it shortens the "Department of Government Efficiency" article to a more reasonable length. Alenoach (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Members is the most general concept. Network would be my choice. Both include the workforce. That table isn't about any workforce. It's about a network. If the page is renamed, the template needs to be corrected.

That question is independent from whether we should have a page for the table alone or not. I can live we both. Revisiting all the citations and removing the anchors needs to be done either way. Selbsportrait (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Is your proposal to rename the article "Network of the Department of Government Efficiency" and the section "Workforce" with "Network" instead? I agree that the term "Network" seems more accurate. I'm ok with renaming the article. Alenoach (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be my proposal. I already modified the Template and it seems to work well. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I generally support Selbs' ideas in this domain but I also think you should have this discussion on that page rather than this one Czarking0 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the section about DOGE members be split into a separate page called List of Department of Government Efficiency members. see above. @Selbsportrait, Czarking0, FactOrOpinion, Horse Eye's Back, Bluethricecreamman, FriendlyRiverOtter, TheGrassWhistle, Maxeto0910, NuclearSpuds, Chetsford, DividedFrame, Very Polite Person, ReferenceMan, BootsED, Richard Nowell, Soibangla, KitCatalog, Adolphus79, WeatherWriter, Terrainman, ElijahPepe, Isaidnoway, Max1298, and Goszei: I pinged you guys. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The list bloats this article too much. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I support with a summary section in this article that references that one. I further want to highlight sources like "Elon Musk's Demolition Crew" (ProPublica) which serve to highlight the notability of the list itself. Czarking0 (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure -- considerably shorter of course AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing splitting off the section or just the list? Because the proposed target could only host the list not the rest of the section and that list isn't really formatted to be stand-alone (most of the information would not be retained if it was reformatted as a stand alone list), if we want to actually split the section then a non-list page like Department of Government Efficiency staff or Department of Government Efficiency workforce would be much more appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point, yes. I am proposing splitting off the section. I will use a title similar to your suggestion. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the section. I specifically support splitting the list. I don't think the article is long enough for this section to be split. It is over 9,000 words but I think between splitting the list and just better copyediting this article would be under 9000 words Czarking0 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, understood. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Members are not all in DOGE's workforce. The subsections of Workforce have been written to be independent from the Members' list.

Separating actions from responses makes little sense. So is separating Elon's status from the section on legalese.

Again, reading the page helps.

Most encyclopedia entries follow a why-what-how structure. It's really hard to reinvent it. Even if that works, additions by new editors will destroy it. That already happened on the page a few times already.

Most of the efforts so far to split that page have been underwhelming, to say the least. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

And what is your source for "Members are not all in DOGE's workforce"? I would also note that I wrote some of those subsections so I know for a fact that you aren't telling the truth, they were not written to be independent of each other. You can speak for yourself, but when you make claims about other editors like that you just end up telling lies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A problem is that "the DOGE workforce" is not a well-defined thing. To quote Wired, ‘Who Is DOGE?’ Has Become a Metaphysical Question. Fine Apples (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Fine Apples that membership isn't well-defined and it's probably more meaningful to keep that definition wider to include whoever has been implementing and representing doge actions in various agencies, which mirrors that of news articles, including nyt https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/27/us/politics/doge-staff-list.html KitCatalog (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I support splitting the list without the section because I think the information provided in the section is valuable to the larger article and I think that the list would do fine without the preceding section. Necessary context for the list can be given in a short preface without having to carve out pieces of the ‘Workforce’ section. I also think the list is a good target for trimming down the article because it consumes significant space without proportionally contributing to a reader’s understanding of DOGE. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 05:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

Here is my source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency Read it. It's a good page. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a reliable source and insisting that I read a page which its clear I have read is uncivil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC) There are sources in that page. Search for "Gleason". Selbsportrait (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The burden to provide a source to support the claim is on the person who made it, that would be you. Simply pointing to a wikipedia page is not providing a source, I think you might be misunderstanding something but we won't know until you actually explain your position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Fine: 1. Ehikian said that there were no DOGE members at GSA, which presumes a very strict meaning of "DOGE member". 2. Gleason said that she had no authority over DOGE members embedded within other agencies. 3. DOGE lawyers arguing in court that only USDS employees are DOGE members. 4. The very fact that Andreessen and Gracias are included in the trackers should have been enough of a hint. The burden of an editor who wants to quarterback a page is to read it, more so when it comes with strong accusations. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The sources seem to use a much broader meaning of "DOGE member" and to not take Gleason's argument seriously, we have high quality RS which make no major distinction between workforce, staff, and members. There is no such burden as you describe, you're making stuff up again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Arguing by denial does not dispense an editor to show their work. Our sources distinguish those who work for USDS, those who work elsewhere, those who made disclosures because they're special employees, those for whom the USDS asked for funding, those who have an email, and where. The concept of DOGE membership is another conceptual beast altogether. And yes, there is such a burden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence Selbsportrait (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The sources seem to group them all under DOGE, treating the technical differences as immaterial and sometimes attributing them to purposeful obfuscation on the part of DOGE. There is no such burden, you've linked to a wikipedia article... WP:PRUDENCE doesn't go anywhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Yes, Membership includes workers. Not the other way around. And no, I don't need to cite a silly WP: page to know how prudence works. Morality and pragmatics are older than the wiki. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Ok well that isn't how you structured the page or how it is currently structured (nor does it actually appear that all the RS follow that convention). If its not in policy and guideline it doesn't matter, there is no such burden enumerated in P+G. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Sure. Feel free to continue accusing other editors of lying without any kind of due diligence. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC) How is that related to what I just wrote? That doesn't appear to have anything to do with either article structure or relevent P+G. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Which part of "other editors like that you just end up telling lies" am I misunderstanding? Selbsportrait (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC) What about that do you believe is incorrect? You made a sweeping statement about the intent of the editors of those sections... But I was one of those writers and your statement did not factually reflect my editorial intent. Did you not do any kind of due diligence before making that statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Which intent? If you're to call editors liars, at least own it. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC) "they were not written to be independent of each other." I said that the Workforce subsections were written to be read independently from the Members section. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Looking at the article history that doesn't appear to be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Clicking on Who Wrote That? makes me dispute that appearance. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Clicking on Who Wrote That? suggests that you are dominating this article in an inappropriate way, but if you want to make an argument you actually to have to make one you can't just make snide comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC) You've made 2,400 edits to the article, that is more than 10x the next most prolific editor. You don't get to simply bludgeon your way to what you want. Do you not understand that you are in no position to make demands? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC) You simply misread my comment. And now you finally realize that your accusations were wrong. Do you realize that being right, while not being sufficient, is kinda necessary? That's why we're here: to make things right. Which means that being wrong is also fine. As long as we correct it at some point. Feel free to edit the page as you see fit. Please, the more the merrier. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Its not civil to continually put words in other editors mouths, I did not "realize that your accusations were wrong." Nor is this about being right or wrong, its not necessary and wikipedia is not a battleground. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Oh, you were being civil? "Making things right" is about things, not about you or me. Only the information matters here. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Yes my conduct has comported with modern expectations of civility and "Only the information matters here" simply is not true either in this specific context or larger wiki sense... I suggest that you take another look at WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC) No, it wasn't civil. "Looking at the article history that doesn't appear to be true" is unverifiable passive aggression. Your "You" [...] "you" [...] "you" [...] "you" [etc] stopped being passive. But aggression is less important than the distraction: DOGE membership is more general than DOGE workforce. That's the only reason I commented on this topic. As you may not have noticed, I have not voted on the split proposal. I'm utterly agnostic about that decision. Separating the list is fine. So is adding the whole Workforce section. There's really no need to subsume Workforce under Membership to make that move. So now I got to ask: when all will be said and done, will you still be editing these pages? Selbsportrait (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC) We seem to have a number of sources who treat workforce and membership as interchangeable. This might surprise you but I edited both this article and talk page before you did[2]... Presumably I will still be editing them long after you are gone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Respectfully, @Selbsportrait, you are not the only contributor to this article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Respectfully, @AnonymousScholar49, I wasn't talking to you. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Why do you think its appropriate to shut down a fellow editor like that? You yourself have no qualms about replying to comments not directed to you (including comments by AnonymousScholar49), so why the double standard? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC) "We seem to have a number of sources who treat workforce and membership as interchangeable." "Workforce" has a legal meaning, so I doubt that seeming. The first sentence from the member section reads: "TechCrunch sorts DOGE members as inner circle, senior figures, worker bees, or aides." Which part of Musk's inner circle belongs to DOGE workforce: all of them? None of them, except perhaps for Davis, and perhaps Hollander. (Gracias did not show up at Musk's Wisconsin rally as a "worker".) But even then we don't *know* anything about their contractual ties with the government. Now, take Leland Dudek. In what sense is he part of the DOGE workforce? He's not even from Musk or Thiel's sphere of influence! It's just a middle manager who happened to be at the right place and the right time. You could argue that he's helping DOGE's agenda, whatever that means. But so are every acting administrator of every agency that coordinates with a DOGE team Lead. What makes him special, "workforce"-wise? Nothing. Now, consider: how do we characterize real DOGE employees, like say Nate Cavanaugh? We can't say they're workers without having to write stuff like a worker that is part of the DOGE workforce, compared to a non-worker that is part of the DOGE workforce! So not only are we complicating our ontology for no good reason, but we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a court, legal meanings don't matter to us. Inner circle =/= Musk's inner circle at least as TechCrunch appears to be using it (unless I'm missing something they seem to be suggesting a much smaller overlap and their terminology doesn't match yours, they simply are not making the distinction that you are). We don't do ontology, you apparently want to do original research and then substitute your own opinions for RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Again, arguing by denial. The best way not to provide any work. Yes, legal meanings matters. There's even a section for them. Yes, TechCrunch distinguish "staffers" from advisors from the inner circle. It calls its tracker the Musk **Universe**. Members of that universe extend beyond workers. Same with the NYT: leadership, staffers, and allies. It calls it Musk's Team. ProPublica calls it Elon Musk's Demolition Crew, and mention employees, staffers or allies. Allies, inner circle, universe: these trackers provide a **network**. They show the ties between all the actors. So yes, we're stuck with ontology. We deal with concepts. We can't describe anything without one. And the one we have is muddy: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-doge-mystery-general-services-administration/ Selbsportrait (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Circling back to the core topic here would you support a move to Department of Government Efficiency members? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Also -- clarify whether you want the whole workforce & members section to be split, or just the members list. And in the future @Selbsportrait please follow WP:AGF and please don't make accusations regarding whether an editor has read the article or not. I have, and others active on the talk probably have. Let's reach consensus and work together to improve the article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC) My policy is to let talkers decide. My only qualm is not to call it "workforce". Any generic concept would do: members, network, etc. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Oh, and I point at "please follow WP:AGF" and I point at "please don't make accusations". That is all. Peace out. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Ok? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC) WP:PASSIVE AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Your policy doesn't make any sense, you are the most prolific talker on this page. You have made 149 edits to this talk page, the #2 editor has made 66 and the top ten cutoff is 26. Nobody talks as much as you and it isn't even close, you're double the #2. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC) There's no need to vote when all the choices are fine and I don't oppose the change. Separating editors from talkers also increases independence. They see the page from an external perspective, which is one reason why we have editorial teams in the first place. A rock/talk ratio might be a more reliable statistic to identify talkers. If I look at my last 500 contributions, I see 34 "talk:". By contrast, you have 214, and 60 "Wikipedia:". Keep talking! As for myself, unless there's a need to make sure we won't spend another month with misnamed pages, I'll find better use for my time. Ta. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC) I see 36 Talk and User Talk page contributions in just your last 50 edits, we can both pick cherries. I would also note that more talk page participation is a positive not a negative, the key is avoiding dominating a talk page as you have done here. Your edits are essentially those of a disruptive SPA... Both on talk and in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC) @selbsportrait -- talking on talk pages to come to consensus is one of the most important parts of Wikipedia. Talk pages are how we prevent edit warring and revert competitions. Additionally, I implore you to assume good faith and be civil and respectful.

• I would support a split. I believe you'll need to follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure so that this split proposal is better advertised. Some1 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) I've moved the Split template from the talk page to the article per Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. Some1 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for fixing up the splitting procedure @Some1 :D AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Removed "copy edit" template

I removed this template:

I agree that there are a lot of instances of "x reported ...", but when I tried to removed some of the attributions, it seemed to me that the attribution was often warranted. Notably because the topic is sensitive (making it sometimes more WP:NPOV to attribute precisely), and because much of the content of this article comes from investigative journalism and is arranged in chronological order depending on when the information was reported. Anyway, since the problem seems relatively minor, I removed the template, but I'm not opposed to someone spending time to address that if there is a good solution. Alenoach (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place. Maintenance templates are not to be used to express your personal opinion." WP:MTR
• "Avoid stating facts as opinions" WP:NPOV

Czarking0 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the template. The user who posted it has not described their case here for days and this looks like WP:DRIVEBY. Saying "CBS News reports" is perfectly acceptable. Not sure what NPOV violation the individual was alleging with their link to WP:VOICE. If it's just that the page is "biased" then this is just an example WP:SOAP. BootsED (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I have quoted the section I am referring to above. "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Factual statements from reliable sources should be phrased in WP's voice rather than attributed. Czarking0 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

CBS News is cited as a source twelve times, but their only mention in the article is On March 26, DOGE has removed USAID contract details due to "legal reason"; about 45% of the items disappeared from their website, according to CBS News, under "Broadcasting the president's DOGE agenda". If any editor believes that this sentence is stating a fact, but is presented as an opinion, it is complete overkill to place a copyediting banner at the head of the article. We have the {{Fact or opinion|date=April 2025}} tag which should be placed at the end of the sentence, after the citation. Then, if there is consensus that the sentence states a fact, the wording can be amended, and the tag removed. If, on the other hand, consensus is that CBS News are offering an opinion, then "according to CBS News" is the correct usage.

The banner rationale has been amended in the last hour to "WP:VOICE presents facts as opinions". If CBS News is no longer an issue, we need the person who placed the banner to list all instances of POV, so that they can be addressed.

FWIW, I entirely agree with Alenoach and BootsED that the banner should be removed. No precise reasons have been presented for its placement, which seems to have arisen from confusion around what constitutes a hard fact and what constitutes information unearthed by investigative journalism. In the main, the latter qualifies as opinion, until it is proven to be a hard fact. If the editor would like to read the introduction to WP:OPINION, they will see: Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. OPINION is an essay, but it supports NPOV extremely well. Spartathenian (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The CBS News is just one example of stating facts as opinions. No one needs to list every example of where an article needs cleanup in order to tag it. That would just defeat the purpose of tagging. Czarking0 (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Your edits seem fine. Alenoach (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• I edited and I think I resolved the voice issues. Alenoach, BootsED, Spartathenian you may want to review the edits for future referenceCzarking0 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Department of Goverment Efficiency = DGE ≠ DOGE

Why is this one of the only governmental departments whose’ abbreviation include the “o”? Every other department usually excludes the “of” (FBI, DMV, etc.), why is it included? KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Because that's what they're called, it's their official name, its how DOGE is covered in media sources, etc. I don't think anyone refers to DOGE as DGE. The whole point i think is to mirror the dogecoin meme AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Because DOGE is a backronym from the name of a memecoin and the rest of those aren't backronyms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a much better explanation lol AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

When did Amanda Scales start

The current source quote "Among the group that now runs OPM is Amanda Scales, a former Musk employee, who is now OPM's chief of staff. In some memos sent out on Jan. 20 and Jan. 21 by Ezell, including one directing agencies to identify federal workers on probationary periods, agency heads were asked to email Scales at her OPM email address." does not support the article claim Before Trump's first day in office, DOGE member Amanda Scales was already chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management. Jan 20 was Trump's first day. Czarking0 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Instead of making an assertion on a talk page to refer to it in the comments (self-citation is a form of plagiarism), how about you correct the sentence instead of deleting the sentence and the citation?

Try "By" - you're edit warring for one word. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Since you are the one calling it edit warring I would appreciate if you make the change. If I overwrite you now it would count towards WP:3RR. Anything that is supported by the sources I support. Also I frame this over fighting against one claim not supported by sources rather than one word. The one word framing is ridiculous when one word is always the difference between truth and fabrication. Czarking0 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Already done. Frame this however you please. This is not Simple Wikipedia: we can expect readers to understand that writing memos and having an email address are not done in one day.

It's obvious you read sentence by sentence as some kind of "trunk test". You just asked for a citation about a sentence that introduces a paragraph with plenty already. You deleted information that helps establish the connection between Project 2025 and DOGE because information about Project 2025 is presumably irrelevant.

Let's just hope the page won't turn into WP:CREEP. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

USDSTO

This is not a real acronym. Not a single source in the place this is introduced uses this acronym and googling it shows that it is not a common name. Czarking0 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"Not a single source"

False:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/ Selbsportrait (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ctrl+F shows that "USDSTO" is not in this document Czarking0 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned.

Good riddance, then! Selbsportrait (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:TAGBOMB

See WP:TAGBOMB.

Second day in a row now. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

No tag bombing occurring and tagbomb is not a guideline Czarking0 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, tag bombing, and denying the obvious isn't covered by a guideline either. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If you think tagbomb is occurring can you give three examples of "unjustified addition". Pre-warning, you probably won't change my mind since I added them but I think the explanation would help others determine if I am offending. Obviously I am making constructive edits to the article (which you have pushed back on) in addition to my tags. Czarking0 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If you don't know who is the USDS administrator, then find it, and add it. The actual one is Amy Gleason: it's in the box at the top right of the page.

The TL:DR of the tag bombing entry is: "focus attention on the most important problems". How is the mention of Amy Gleason important to understand that section?

She's not in the executive order itself, and that section is about DOGE structure. Would "it is currently Amy Gleason" stand the 10-year test you favor?

See how easy it can be to nudge editors to do one thing and its opposite using tags.

If you think readers need a secondary source for an official text, then find it, and add it. If you think a section describing an executive order isn't notable unless there's a secondary source that mentions every word we repeat, then say it. Or better: show us what would work for you.

Destroying information is the opposite of constructiveness, and peppering pages with tags is peppering pages with tags, whatever the intent. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Saying effectively fix the tags yourself does not make the tags unwarranted. We are not here to argue if tagging is helpful for the project since there is broad consensus that it is Czarking0 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

By chance I'm not saying fix the tags yourself to make them unwarranted, then. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment Czarking0 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You misconstrued my argument by using the old X-does-not-imply-Y trick.

I'm saying your tags are unwarranted, and offering you a way out of it.

If you think that an issue deserves due diligence, then you're the best person to know what to do about it. I have no idea why you decided to tag some sentences from the Structure, and not others.

Now, it can happen that you don't know how to fix it, or don't have the time. Tagging can thus be helpful, at least if it's not a drive-by. It's obvious you have time to edit the page. So why not try to fix it? Selbsportrait (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not ask for your advise on how to edit nor do I particularly want it. If you want discuss how article content should be modified then let's keep it on the talk page. If you want to discuss my editing conduct take it to my talk page. Czarking0 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not ask for any counterfactual such as "If you think that" either, yet here we are.

Destroying citations and then asking for citations is not a constructive way to modify a page. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• At the very least, the {{who}} tag was clearly misapplied. That tag is for WP:WEASEL issues - for attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like; in this case nothing was being attributed to the USDS administrator, and in any case it isn't vague (it's a specific person), so the tag doesn't apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  You are right thanks for correcting me there. Is there a better tag for that? I think it is important to state who the officeholders are. In this case I added the current one. Czarking0 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Selbsportrait: Saying this here so you see Aquillions comment about how I was applying the who tag incorrectly. I think you correctly applied it to my Other sources however the article does not same the sources so I am not sure how to answer this who tag unless more sources are found. As for Sacks and Garcia not being I source, Oxford defines source as "a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained." In this sense I think Sacks and Garcia are sources from which right wing views (or opinions) can be obtained. I don't think calling them a source is value laden about the quality of what is being obtained so I see no issue in calling them sources. Czarking0 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  Sacks just owns the outlet where Gracias makes his claim. Gracias is the DOGE guy you're talking about. He's just saying stuff.

  And now you're applying false balance. No reliable sources support the claim Gracias, Musk, and DOGE keep repeating.

  All this is more than confusing - it's misleading. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)