Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

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[1]... 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)

Title consistency

The minimal point I want to make is MOS:HEAD: we can't keep repeating agencies' names in titles.

But to deescalate things a bit, I will make a stronger point -

Sections and subsections ought to be divided using a consistent criteria. I'm sure there's a page on this somewhere. There are too many advantages of doing so to bother finding one. It makes table of contents quicker to navigate. It makes adding material easier for editors. It minimizes redundancy. It is conceptually cleaner too.

We are still free to choose how to divide an entry. For instance:

Actions within the federal government
   Administration of federal databases
   Data collection
   Downsizing the federal workforce
   Coordination to shut down operations
   Executive branch shakeup
Actions outside the federal government

can be replaced by

Actions 
 In the federal government
   Administration of federal databases
   Data collection
   Downsizing the federal workforce
   Coordination to shut down operations
   Executive branch shakeup
 Outside the federal government

is more or less a matter of taste. What is not is consistent is adding something like this:

Executive branch shakeup
 Real assets selloff
 Recontracting
 USPS 
 Privatization

Doing so breaks consistency: USPS is not an action. It has no common denominator with the other section titles. Suppose DOGE sells off real assets from USPS. An editor would have to choose between Real assets selloff and USPS. And as more material gets added, the structure breaks down.

So the question becomes: do we want to divide by agency or by type of actions? There are many agencies that DOGE is shaking up, independent or not from the executive branch. It'd be more natural to limit the types of action that constitute an executive branch shakeup than to gather material that should rather go in 2025 United States federal mass layoffs, US federal agencies targeted by DOGE, or even USPS itself.

For this is a page about DOGE, not USPS. There's no need to provide any detail as to why USPS asked DOGE for help. A mention would do.

Another problem with dividing by agency is title duplication. The first agencies that DOGE has shaken off are OPM, GSA, and SSA. These are already mentioned earlier in our Table of contents. An editorial decision that wasn't mine, btw - I abided by it, and even amplified it by seeing it through. Duplicating these titles will make it harder for readers to find material, and it may lead editors to add statements about GSA at odd places.

The same difficulty will arise if we decide to redo everything and start with agencies:

actions
 OPM
  asset sell-off
 GSA
  asset sell-off
 SSA
  asset sell-off
 HHS
  asset sell-off

This example, should make clear that there's always a point when we need to stop adding subsections. Reading the contents table should make clear that "asset sell-off" is more informative than "GSA".

We could decide to redo everything. I would even lend an hand. However, just inserting USPS to start a digression on how DOGE can save USPS won't do. It breaks too many principles at the same time.

Ideally, the stronger point I made explains the minimal point. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

United States Institute for Peace is in the Coordination to shut down operations section

For BRD I am pointing out that USIP should only be covered in one place in the article. I am consolidating it. Czarking0 (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

What is a federal agency?

Unless we can establish a clear criterion to divide the agencies in and out the federal government, maintaining the distinction between the actions within and outside the government will be hard. USIP provides an interesting case. Its wiki entry says it's an American independent, nonprofit, national institute. The wiki entry listing federal agencies classifies it as quasi-official. I've seen it called a think tank, akin to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Wilson Center. NED is a Quango, i.e. a quasi-NGO. "NGO" stands for non-governmental organization.

Is USIP part of the federal government or not? Are quangos federal agencies? For the section, I don't think these questions should matter. Unless the DOGE actions differ in an out of the government, we could let go of that distinction. However, the question still matters for the page. The Targets page should be about federal agencies. If an entity isn't considered a federal agency, where should we put it?

The Actions section from the main DOGE page should help explain DOGE's purpose, not as a declaration of intent, but as specific functions it satisfies. If we really want to list agencies, one solution could be to add a section about all the DOGE targets: Targets, Agencies, whatever. There we could copy or transduce the lead section from the Targets page, either on top or after an in/out-government division. The Targets page itself should be summarized via a series of tables.

What DOGE does outside the government could still be summarized here on the page, because there would be nowhere else to do so if we decide that DOGE is acting outside federal agencies. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

For better or worse, "agency" is defined in more than one place in the U.S. Code, and the definitions differ somewhat. With respect to DOGE, some of the relevant EOs identify a section of the U.S. Code that defines "agency." For example, EO 14158 states "'Agency' has the meaning given to it in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except that such term does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof," Title 5 § 551, whereas EO 14210 says "'Agency' has the meaning given to it in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code, except that such term does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof," 44 U.S. Code § 3502. USIP is "an independent nonprofit corporation and an organization described in section 170(c)(2)(B) of title 26," funded by Congress (U.S. Code here). But I don't know that any of this answers your questions about the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the direction you are indicating here.

However, I think a little too much thought is being put towards the agency question. To the average reader, it does not matter. If that page was titled Organizations Targeted by DOGE I believe it would be equally valuable for the reader. Likewise for this page I think the grouping between inside or outside the government is not one of the most important section distinctions. This is still an important point to be discussed in the article, but it is not something to build the structure of the article around.

Therefore, I would suggest grouping the top level sections a bit more with a lot of focus on what readers are looking for when they come here. They are probably not looking for information grouped by in or out of the federal government nor agency vs quasi-gov NGO. Czarking0 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The minimalist approach would be to keep the structure as is, and add a Targets section to the main page. Lawsuits and Response and Network already have their own. That way, readers and editors can easily navigate between all the DOGE pages.

There needs to be a place for actions such as this:

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/09/nx-s1-5389952/usda-snap-doge-data-immigration

States themselves are now being targeted. If the Targets page gets renamed to include all of DOGE's targets, then its lead section will be designed differently. But it already has enough material as is.

As for the division problem, my own choice would be to decide that an agency is "truly independent" if it can survive federal cuts. Whether or not USIP is independent in the sense of the law means little if an administration can fire or pack its board, and make it powerless.

The same test can apply to determine if an organization has been dismantled. It doesn't matter much if USAID still exists on paper: if it doesn't do what it was meant to do, it's functionally gone. Same for ED or any other entity.

But that kind of design choice has a low success rate through the iterations of this page. Having a clear-cut legal distinction would have helped. Perhaps we can't have good things, after all. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Smart Pay card restrictions

Have the restrictions been ended/scaled back? I have not seen information about that Czarking0 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems like not yet from my searching Czarking0 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

OWN and anonymous sources

@Horse Eye's Back, FactOrOpinion, and AnonymousScholar49: Selbsportrait continues to exhibit WP:OWN behavior on this article as we have discusses in other places. My current gripe being that he will not allow any form of clarification that claims in the articles sometimes come from anonymous sources. I think there is a meaningful difference between the verifiability and the reliability of claims made solely on account of anonymous sources vs named sources. I further believe we should make this transparent to the reader. Curious what you have to say on this matter Czarking0 (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

"Sources for this story were granted anonymity because they feared retribution if they were named" means the journalist knows the sources' names.

That's not the same thing as an anonymous source contacting a journalist.

"Source" already implies anonymity.

Jury building borders on WP:GAME. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

"Source" does not imply anonymity. Reporters often use named sources. In journalism, an anonymous source is someone whose identity isn't revealed to readers/listeners. The identities of most anonymous (aka confidential or unnamed) sources are generally known by the reporter, though on rare occasions, the source's identity isn't known, as when an unknown source mails a relevant document to a reporter.

It strikes me as reasonable though not essential to note that information came from a confidential source. But the bigger point is: this is now in the D portion of BRD, so the people who care about this should try to come to consensus about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"Reporters often use named sources."

Then they name them. That's not the usage of "source" that is relevant here.

"Anonymous sources" undersells that the information is from credible source with direct knowledge of factual matters. "Staffers" would be more appropriate. My point is that words such as "staffers", in such context, already implies that they don't want to be named. In other words, "anonymous staffers" would be a pleonasm. If we want to make clear that we're talking about anonymous staffers, we can always indicate it in the citation quote.

When a whole bureau tells journalists that they can't access a level, when the level is blocked by security guards, when they show invoices of washing machines, when they show photos of transponders, to speak of "anonymous sources" is far from clarifying anything. It's actually a way to game conciseness. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken, there is no meaningful difference in the verifiability or reliability of those claims for wikipedia's purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a guideline on this or are you saying that the lack of a guideline implies your point? Czarking0 (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

How would it affect either WP:V or WP:RS? As for your mention of WP:SPORTSTRANS below, I don't see how it's relevant, since we're not talking about speculation re: a future event. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the future event / past reporting distinction. I certainly think that is relevant here. Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is a illustration of my concern WP:SPORTSTRANS. Obviously this is a different subject but I think similar guidance would be nice on more than just this page. Czarking0 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Journalistic standards refute the suggestion that anonymous sources should be equated to gossip:

https://www.npr.org/about-npr/688745813/special-section-anonymous-sourcing

https://ethicsandjournalism.org/resources/best-practices/best-practices-anonymous-sources/

https://web.archive.org/web/20250123182337/https://www.nytimes.com/article/why-new-york-times-anonymous-sources.html

Perhaps I should speak of "underhanded" suggestion, for clarification's sake.

When it's not "who" questions, it's reliability. When more clarifications is added to support reliability, then it'll become worries about undue weight. And at every step information is being destroyed needlessly.

There will always be a way to game these rules.

Meanwhile, the Actions section is still missing an AI subsection. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

And speaking of gamesmanship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&diff=prev&oldid=1290961766

This edit destroys information by alleging OR when it simply rests on reading a single sentence, not the paragraph.

(WP:CREEP obtains when an editor decides to separate two clauses, but forgets to connect the citation to both.)

This edit also fails WP:PRESERVE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&diff=prev&oldid=1290963272

No attempt to salvage anything, or even understand what is being said and done. Just pure destruction. Once again by invoking another WP term that is misapplied. Selbsportrait (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you assume good faith rather than assert gamesmanship. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you ponder on what WP:OWN means. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

They need to assume good faith too. Both of you should assume good faith and try to come to consensus about the issues where you disagree. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Selbsportrait: I apologize. I did not realize you considered OWN to be against AGF. I want to make clear that I think you have made great contributions to the article and I believe you are operating in good faith. I also think you exhibit OWN behavior on this article. I did not come to this conclusion on my own, but thought it was appropriate to bring it up after here after other editors had already warned you of it on your talk page and you continued to do so here. From WP:OWN "An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic". Also from OWN "It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil" so I do not think making a section raising OWN concerns violates the assumption of good faith.

Further from OWN:

1. "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently." I think reverting Anonymous sources vs sources is a great example of this.

Czarking0 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

"Frequently" here means twice. Both times it was you who kept trying to add "anonymous" instead of clarifying that it was multiple staffers. And we now know that it's because of a misunderstanding about the role of anonymous sources in journalism. Gossip isn't just about future events: it's about anything unreliable. Trade rumors based on something overheard by the personal trainer's cousin, reported by a sports columnist who has been burned many times by their sources, say.

And of course the WP:OWN accusation indeed breaks the assumption: "Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship." I said why I believed that "anonymous" made the page worse: it adds nothing, and using "sources" instead of "staffers" subtract. Just like there's really no need to add that, for instance, WaPo interviewed 25 people for their story and that their testimony has been corroborated with material evidence: readers can check that for themselves by reading the article.

Besides, we both know from where you saw WP:OWN last. Perhaps you find back the relevant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring discussion, using the same canvassing technique? Selbsportrait (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what canvassing technique means Czarking0 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a reference to WP:CANVASS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: I don't see how WP:CANVASS can " you find back the relevant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring discussion" or what that means Czarking0 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You'll need to ask Selbsportrait to clarify that. I was simply responding to your statement that you didn't know what canvassing refers to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Which I appreciate. I thought you might have understood the second part as well Czarking0 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You really don't recall trying to have me banned while pinging the same guys you just pinged? Selbsportrait (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I do, but I still don't understand your previous comment Czarking0 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there something in WP:CANVASS that escapes you too? Selbsportrait (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop responding with questions. Czarking0 told you that he didn't understand what you meant (and part of the problem may be that "Perhaps you find back the relevant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring discussion" isn't grammatical), and the most productive response is just to explain what you meant.

For example, if you meant something like "I don't accept your apology, because I don't see how anyone can allege WP:OWN while assuming good faith," then say that. If you meant "this is the second time you've pinged the same three other editors in raising your concerns with me, and it strikes me as canvassing," then say that. If you do accept the apology, it would be helpful for you to say so and apologize in turn for the allegation of gamesmanship. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop trying to pretend that your counterfactuals are somehow productive and not loaded at all.

I also suggest that you stop acting like you're some kind of referee here.

But more importantly, I do suggest that you read WP:AAGF before suggesting anything to anyone ever again. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a referee, nor am I pretending anything. If you find my response to you unproductive, I regret that. The fact remains: Czarking0 told you that he didn't understand what you meant, and you've chosen to respond to him with questions instead of clarifying. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

What you present as a fact contains a judgment. I could reply that the fact remains that only thing you didn't address is WP:AAGF to make you get that point. I said I could: does it mean I didn't? Of course I did, by using apophasis.

Counterfactuals work the same way. You're using that a rhetorical device that defeats the point of your comment. It's indirect. The same applies to pro-tips such as "WP:AGF, please". They're basically self-defeating. Which is why we have pages such as

WP:ATEAGFATYAAGF

If you want direct, go first.

Now, the claim that "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently" implies edit warring.

WP:3RR also implies edit warring.

Appealing to WP:OWN instead of WP:3RR amounts to the same when the underlying accusation is edit warring. For two edits. On two different cases. Edits that I justified, and that is supported by journalistic practices.

Whatever the intent behind that behavior, the accusation is worse. Way worse.

So I hope you'll forgive me if doubling down to WP:OWN after trying WP:3RR me rubs me the wrong way.

Now, it is quite possible that those who make WP:OWN accusations misunderstand the implications of "Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part and regard their behavior as stewardship".

To me it is loud and clear, and don't need to be spelled out. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think FactOrOpinion is trying to help this stay on track. I do not think any of us are here to argue but to write this article. I propose that if you think my changes are unproductive you leave them up at least for a few days. If they are really so bad then I think other editors will also look to modify them. I believe you implied in this conversation that the article has more important changes for you to make than the ones I have addressed. I probably agree with that point. If you wait a few days to overwrite my changes then it will (I think) leave you more time to focus on the parts that you deem as important. If no one else has overwritten my changes then you could still do so and we could potentially BRD will less arguing. I believe propagating the current mode of editing between us will only continue to lead to argument. Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In return, I propose that talk pages are all about providing good arguments.

Code words are weak. They lead you astray too many times already on this page. If you can't say what you mean directly, drop them. If you can say what you mean, you should drop them.

Voicing an opinion is not an argument. Consensus is based on tallying up arguments, not votes. That's the meaning behind the saying that Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Appealing to intentions is irrelevant. That includes appealing to your own intentions. It's the best way to introduce personal attacks in a discussion, more often than not indirectly.

Pinging people should be done sparingly, and for the sake of getting better arguments. Not opinions, certainly not opinions about other editors.

I won't tolerate any more harassment. Selbsportrait (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)