Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Nomination of Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Former DOGE employees

[edit]

search "Former DOGE employee" "DOGE workers quit"

Network of the Department of Government Efficiency

make a section about exit interviews of fired or quit ex-employees in the news? for example:

Edward Coristine

Sahil Lavingia

D.K.

Merici Vinton

Piñanana (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Busy with other pages, but will try to get to it next week. If not, ping me. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Selbsportrait (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Network of the Department of Government Efficiency for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Network of the Department of Government Efficiency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of the Department of Government Efficiency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Selbsportrait (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Selbsportrait (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2025

[edit]

Change "During his speech to a join session of Congress," to " During his speech to a joint session of Congress," 2601:42:0:51C0:2ABC:4285:F7C0:4C8C (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done meamemg (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2025

[edit]

Change the very end of the section "Savings announcement" to read the following:

DOGE reported approximately $660 million in savings from lease cancellations and non-renewals nationwide as of March 2025. Researchers estimate that lease cancellations in Washington, D.C. alone generated office property value losses of $575 million, with another $51 million in forecasted lost commercial property tax revenues over the next five years. Compared to the $76 million in savings for D.C. reported on the DOGE website as of mid-March 2025, the cancellations fail a simple cost-benefit analysis.

The source for these numbers is:

Choi, Soon Hyeok; LaPoint, Cameron (June 28, 2025). "Pricing Government Contract Risk Premia: Evidence from the 2025 Federal Lease Terminations." SSRN. Keizaiwiz (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the source returns a 404 error; could you please provide the correct link? Day Creature (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needed an underscore in the link, try "Pricing Government Contract Risk Premia: Evidence from the 2025 Federal Lease Terminations". LizardJr8 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to help with this, but I see several potential issues and also bit of a problem with verification. I will cut your edit into pieces that I can ask questions about separately.
1) ‘DOGE reported approximately $660 million in savings from lease cancellations and non-renewals nationwide as of March 2025.’ -this is a purely factual statement (saying what DOGE reported) and could be verified easily. But it would help if you could provide page numbers so that I (or readers) could easily find where in the 88-page document to find what DOGE reported.
2) ‘Researchers estimate that lease cancellations in Washington, D.C. alone generated office property value losses of $575 million, ‘ - similar to 1. Should be easy to verify what the researcher in the paper estimates with a page number. (In this case it’s easily found in the abstract, page 1 and throughout the article and conclusion)
3) ‘with another $51 million in forecasted lost commercial property tax revenues over the next five years.’ (This can be found in the introduction and toward the end of chapter 7)
4) ‘Compared to the $76 million in savings for D.C. reported on the DOGE website as of mid-March 2025, ‘ - here I need some help as in 1). I don’t see this very clearly in the article)
5) ‘the cancellations fail a simple cost-benefit analysis.’ - this part I have the most issue with. I can’t tell if this is your opinion/conclusion or that of the researchers. It reads to me like editorialising, which we aren’t allowed to do. If this is a statement made by the researcher, it can be allowed but I think we would need to (more) clearly cite or paraphrase them.
Slomo666 (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I added your text, minus the forecast bit - seems in the weeds.
 Done Selbsportrait (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]