Talk:Response to the Department of Government Efficiency

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Response to the Department of Government Efficiency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesPresidents of the United States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Department of Government Efficiency was copied or moved into Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal goverment with this edit on 2/20/2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government was copied or moved into Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government with this edit on 2/27/2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Attribution

Contents WP:SPLIT from Department of Government Efficiency; please see its history for attribution. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article merge

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.

Combine these:

To:

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

Please respond on these talk pages:

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

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.

Withdrawing my own proposal to merge, but I agree the articles need better titles. I'm not sure how can disconnect Elon Musk from the article title as all sourcing basically has him inextricably linked to DOGE now as it's leader/patron. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

result:
Moved to Response to the Department of Government Efficiency. Closure requested at WP:CR. See below a definite consensus to move away from the current title. And also see that editors show a preference for my chosen title under WP:OTHEROPTIONS. As the community guides us, "...anyone who objects to the closer's decision may make another move request at any time, and is advised to create such a request instead of taking the closure to move review." Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government → ? – The article needs a name that better describes it. Also I suggest that we don't include Elon Musk in the title as the article focus on DOGE and not Musk. I am in favor of Public responses to the Department of Government Efficiency, but am open to other suggestions as well. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 23:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Response to the Department of Government Efficiency because this is where the split came from, even if the content is very musk centered. No need to disambiguate to Public responses, as no other response articles exist. CNC (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. "Opposition to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government" has been moved to Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency, and Response to the Department of Government Efficiency — or perhaps Responses to..., plural — is consistent with MOS:AT: "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". It should not be "Criticism of ...," or "Opposition to..." as those conflict with NPOV (if anything, this article should include more about those who support DOGE). I also wouldn't title it "Public opinion...," since it's not limited to opinions, but also includes actions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support the title Response to the Department of Government Efficiency. The title is neutral and clearly defines the scope of the article. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Criticism of the Department of Government Efficiency as it is primarily about that. Positive response paragraph can be moved back to the main article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the article has been moved without discussion to Response to the Department of Government Efficiency, which I have reverted. I would support this move, but prefer Opposition to the Department of Government Efficiency. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 22:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat, it was discussed here. Everyone here was also invited (below) to join a centralized discussion on the DOGE talk page about the titles of both this article and another fork of the DOGE article, and it was discussed there. The distribution of content between the two articles was also discussed, which is why I moved some of the content of the other article to this one. I ask you to revert yourself. Re: your preference, it's contrary to NPOV, as I noted (above) two days ago. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion: By policy, moving an article while an RM is in progress is prohibited. Had I kept the article at that title, I would have been violating policy. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 23:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have just said that instead of claiming "the article has been moved without discussion," which wasn't accurate. I wasn't aware that one cannot move a page until it's closed by an uninvolved editor. For some unknown reason, an editor relisted it yesterday, even though it's been open for over 2 weeks. I've left a message on their talk page to find out why. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposition to the..." doesn't work because there's a section titled "Support" in this article. Some1 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Response to the Department of Government Efficiency as it makes more sense for the article's scope. Also I strongly think that Elon Musk should be left out of the title, as the article is about DOGE not Musk. Chicdat thank you for pointing out my mistake in moving the article, will make sure the discussion is over before I or someone else moves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriff U3 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Response to the Department of Government Efficiency. I agree with Sheriff U3; also see my reasoning in my earlier comment re: why other proposed titles aren't appropriate. FWIW, people also expressed their preferences on the main DOGE article talk page, including two editors who support the move to Response to the Department of Government Efficiency, and others with other preferences (which I again think aren't workable given the actual content of this article). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

New Name

The text of this page has been lifted from a section titled Opposition. Since the name of the page is Department of Government Efficiency (or DOGE), the title of the current page should be Opposition to DOGE. Most of the criticisms on that page are obviously about DOGE, and most of the legal reactions are about DOGE too.

If we could have a proper title for this page, that'd be great. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion toward the Department of Government Efficiency? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Public opinion" connotes collective appraisal. It does not encompasses pinpointed criticisms by authorities. Also, legal action is more than public opinion. Same for manifestations.

If we want to subsume everything that has been lifted today, including the positive reaction, "Response to" could work.

If we want to distinguish (legal, political) actions from analyses, then how about "Judgments on" or "Analyses of"? That would lose the cheers and the jeers. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selbsportrait There is a different article for legal action, this one is more of a general public and lawmaker reaction article. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 04:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You moved text you didn't write from a page you provided little and you gave it an incorrect name.

And now you're making an irrelevant point: to say "here are how things are" isn't responsive to how things should be Selbsportrait (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to provide you with a little bit of information. Sorry if I made an issue, I was trying to help. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 18:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that I already know that information, for otherwise the question I'm trying to answer would make no sense. All I want is conceptual clarity. Or else we all will have to work more.

One page for legal case makes sense, considering the amount of legal challenges there will be. Then another page for all the other reactions, be they criticisms or manifestations, also makes sense. All these could be on one page. In that case "reactions" will be fine. Even if we add some surveys at some point.

I don't mind how many pages is being decided. Being clear on the topic of each page affords us more flexibility. Changing our minds along the way will be easier too. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see. So far what I have been hearing is that there should be two pages that focus on the two different aspects of the response to DOGE. (The Legal side and the General side.) There is a renaming discussion going on for the two articles currently. I agree that we need to really decide what will be included in each article, and like your idea for "all the other reactions" to be one of the articles. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's too much fuzziness between Musk and DOGE right now, so I would lean toward including both in the title due to that. It's clear Musk has influence over the DOGE staff and activities even if his formal title is unclear. I know there are a few threads across both pages, but I would vote we merge the two similar pages with the name: Legal response and opposition to the role of Elon Musk and DOGE in the US federal government. KitCatalog (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think I agree the most with this proposal. The public's response to the actions of the DOGE is directly tied to Elon Musk's persona and influence within the federal government. Feitidede☆ﾟ.* 19:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Department of Government Efficiency for RFC on article fork names

Please see here:

Talk:Department of Government Efficiency#Centralized RFC and straw poll for article names on forks

Hopefully we can settle on names and move forward. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter title

Per this discussion I propose the "Department of Government Efficiency" should be shortened to "DOGE" in this article title. Fine Apples (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the corresponding article on the DOGE lawsuits, MOS:ACROTITLE says "If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one (usually the abbreviation) redirecting to the other or being a disambiguation page." We can create a redirect page using the acronym, but don't understand why you want the article itself moved. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's shorter and also likely more recognizable. It may also be less misleading, given that DOGE technically isn't a government department (FactOrOpinion persuaded me to change my mind). 1101 (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]