Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

This is obviously a reference to doge meme

Elon musk has backed doge purely because of its meme status. This is obviously influenced by the meme and it needs to be added to the article, news outlets have already noted this. 2600:1000:B157:B569:ED10:1682:D582:52D7 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Information about the possibility of the name being related to the meme is already present in the article. In the future, please provide references to reliable sources in order to propose changes to the article. TNM101 (chat) 11:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Jeez no need to be a jerk about it, it wasn’t there when I said that. 2600:1000:B157:B569:ED10:1682:D582:52D7 (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just informing to mention sources that prove your point that "news outlets have already noted this". Doing this helps everyone quickly add information to the article. I accept that the first sentence probably wasn't necessary, and I forgot to check the time at which your comment was posted. Thank you TNM101 (chat) 16:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Uhh is this a joke? Tall Tall Mountain (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Musk's relation to Dogecoin

in an older version of the article, I had written in the background section that Musk had previously been accused of manipulating Dogecoin via insider trading - this was in reference to a lawsuit and i cited a news source from the time which reported on the lawsuit

I understand that this may have been removed for fairness since that lawsuit was later dismissed, but I think it's relevant and important enough to be mentioned here in some capacity - I don't know if the current wording (which just describes Musk being "associated" with Dogecoin) accurately illustrates the kind of association he has with it

maybe it could be added back and expanded upon with some clarification about the lawsuit's outcome etc. ?

thanks :) Leetchr (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Leetchr! I noticed your addition, and its subsequent removal. The editor that removed it suggested it was bordering on original research.

Your edit said "which Musk had previously been accused of manipulating via insider trading".

The Guardian source you gave says "Elon Musk is being accused of insider trading in a proposed class action lawsuit by investors".

So, doesn't sound like original research to me. FWIW, Reuters and other sources use the same "accused" language, even when reporting that the lawsuit has been dismissed.

I'll go ahead and add this back in to the article. I'll be clearer that it was a lawsuit that was dropped, but I do agree it's worth mentioning.

If any further disagreement, please feel free to revert my edit and we can continue discussing here. :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

NB. Another Reuters article, extant as a source, explicitly draws the connection between the Department, the cryptocurrency, and the insider trading allegations so this is not Wikipedia:SYNTH. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the Reuters article Jonathan Deamer suggested. The explicit connection was what I was looking for. Since they say it, (I removed the content based on OR concerns) no objection from me on putting it back in. BarntToust 22:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Change article name to "United States Department of Government Efficiency"

Wouldn't adding the "United States" portion to the front of it be proper? This is consistent with other articles such as:

United States Department of Homeland Security

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of State

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

and the list goes on. MediaGuy768 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This change was made yesterday and quickly undone since the Department of Government Efficiency is essentially just a task force, not a full executive branch department. I think it makes sense to differentiate the titles unless this actually becomes an official department. Jamedeus (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay! Interesting! Is there any scholarly citations indicating that this wont be a federal department? I haven't seen anything regarding a "task force". MediaGuy768 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Creating an executive branch department requires an act of Congress and doesn't happen often (the last time was when DHS was created in 2002). Many presidents (including Trump in his first term) have proposed new departments that were never taken up by Congress, but in this case it hasn't even been suggested unless I missed something.

Task force is an informal term, most reliable sources seem to be calling it a commission (likely a presidential commission, which the president can create unilaterally). Until a few days ago it was being referred to as the "Government Efficiency Commission", it seems like it was changed to department for the acronym. Jamedeus (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank You! MediaGuy768 (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Pump and dump...later dismissed"

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

---

Why is a dismissed lawsuit included in this article? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Reuters explicitly makes a connection between it and the name of the department: "The acronym of the new department - DOGE - also references the name of the cryptocurrency dogecoin that Musk promotes. In August Musk and Tesla won the dismissal of a federal lawsuit accusing them of defrauding investors by hyping dogecoin and conducting insider trading, causing billions of dollars of losses." Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not denying that a suit existed. I'm asking whether it is relevant, and in what context. See "notability and weight of failed lawsuits" discussion for example. Context matters, duration of coverage matters, and we don't automatically include case filed, case dismissed media coverage and need to be cautious around performative litigation. Perhaps this is an uphill battle, but this article and others like it should not be a showcase for sneering at the new U.S. administration before it is formed, I feel. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link, @Bri. My point was "it's relevant because a reliable source has mentioned it in the context of Musk's association with the thing the 'department' is named for". But having read the notability and weight of failed lawsuits discussion, I agree it's not that simple. I'm happy to wait and see if more RS coverage explicitly makes the connection in a way that shows it's really relevant. (The lawsuit mention has already been deleted.) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

$500 billion cuts proposed to non-authorized programs

• Kelly Rissman (November 15, 2024). "Vivek Ramaswamy wants to start DOGE cuts by eliminating funding for unauthorized programs - including veteran healthcare". The Independent – via MSN.
• Aimee Picchi (November 21, 2024), "Musk and Ramaswamy say DOGE will target $500 billion in spending. Here's where they say they'll cut.", MoneyWatch, CBS

Potential sources listed above. Also, this article could have a more comprehensive explanation linked to Authorization bill#Appropriations directed to expired authorizations. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency (DOGE) Caucus into Department of Government Efficiency

While I understand that this is going to be a separate group, I don't see evidence of WP:SIGCOV or substantial enough independent coverage to make this a standalone article. In light of WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think it would be better for the caucus to be described in a paragraph or dedicated section in the article on the proposed department at this point in time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I will add some more sources that will prove notability. I believe that this should be independent. Standby. AstroGuy0 (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in time it will have growing info as a result of being a congressional subcommittee. It is likely to be a controversial one at that so I see benefit in keeping them seperate. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait maybe i'm confused. Is this caucus different than the proposed subcommittee? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes the Caucus is different. 174.27.171.211 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Support merge - There is no reason to have a separate article at this time, given the overlap in content and context with the Department of Government Efficiency, it would be more appropriate to integrate this information into the article on the department. A dedicated section or paragraph could effectively provide the necessary details about the caucus without fragmenting related content, aligning with the guidance of WP:PAGEDECIDE. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Support merge, as the Department of Government Efficiency's page is a more appropriate host for the info, for the time being. A section/paragraph on the Caucus will suffice. I agree entirely with Red-tailed hawk and Idoghor Melody. Perhaps this will change in the future, but we should let future events occur first. 30Four (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Support merge- All content in the Doge Caucus article should be in the Department of Government Efficiency page. Zero need for a separate article. I agree with Idoghor Melody, 30Four, and Red-tailed hawk's verdict and support for the proposed merge. TheFloridaMan (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Merge, Yeah so when I first commented on this thread I guess I was a little confused about the cacus being different then the proposed subcommittee. Now that I understand that nuance I have to agree with @Idoghor Melody, @30Four, @Red-tailed hawk, and @TheFloridaMan. The article should be merged so that readers don't have to look in two places for not that much more info. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support merge Can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to auto-confirmed protection

What is everyones thoughts on making this article autoconfirm only? I can't keep up with all the edits, most of which are non-constructive and get reverted 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the edits over the past 48 hours, other than the 134.16 IP, I don't see a lot of reverts of editors likely to be non-autoconfirmed. I'd rather see controls applied to disruptive individuals than locking down the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Bri, not enough outright vandalism. A couple disagreements or improper (probable) good faith edits, but certainly not enough to warrant protection at this time... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"Reception" section

I removed/merged this section but my edit was reverted stating there "needs" to be a Reception section. I think it's a strange section to begin with (this is not a movie or book, it's odd to discuss its "reception") but will also probably lead to POV pushing as there is no real scope or purpose to it aside from expressing opinions (of which there are uncountably many). Citing (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn't there be a reception section? This is a newly announced initiative, and it is also a political matter. There is a great deal of media attention regarding it. Naturally there should be a section on public response. Stating that it will 'probably lead to POV pushing' is not an adequate reason to not have it, it currently does not have POV pushing and there is no reason to think it will in the future. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Department of Government Efficiency Website

Discussion not concerning improvement of this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I bought the website departmentofgovernmentefficiency.com What can I do with it and how can I get it to Elon Musk? Mattgallion (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)