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:

Please respond on these talk pages:

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

  • Oppose They are both good sized articles focusing on two different topics. One focuses of the legal battles. The other one focuses on responses from critics, public, and lawmakers. Also they likely will grow in size as DOGE continues to work.
Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 17:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - @Sheriff U3 makes a good point that each article has a slightly different focus, and is already getting long. It may help instead to clarify via the title that one is focused on legal/judicial challenges while the other focuses on public response more broadly. Turtle-snail (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good, it would help people find the one they want. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 17:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The page lists criticisms of DOGE, not Musk alone. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but would be OK with a merge to "Responses to the..." - If merged, the article would get really lengthy, but I'm not terribly worried about that. Both opposition and response both fall under responses. I'm in favor of a renaming to DOGE instead of Elon Musk, since DOGE's employees have gotten substantial coverage (see Big Balls). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:57, 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

Opposition 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 Legal responses to the Department of Government Efficiency, but am open to other suggestions as well. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges and Opposition to the Department of Government Efficiency? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the link to this article appears in the main DOGE article as Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE, which redirects to this page. That redirect was created on 2/20 by Fine Apples. @Fine Apples, per WP:RM#CM, this should have been discussed first, as you could have anticipated that someone might reasonably disagree with the move, given that the article's content is not limited to legal challenges/opposition to Musk himself. I suggest going back to the previous name, Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with "Legal challenges and resistance to DOGE" or something similar. ReferenceMan (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not experienced at titling pages. This is a tough one becase DOGE and Musk's role are inextricable. Some of the stuff DOGE credits itself with is stuff that Musk's associates have done at Musk's direction. So, there's no clear boundary where DOGE stops and Musk's influence in government starts. Maybe we include both DOGE and Musk in the title? That would make it kind of long, but more accurate. Fine Apples (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I believe some court cases include 'Musk' and others 'DOGE' due to the lack of clear boundary. 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) 02:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite just happened. Legal response now stands on its own. This might be for the best, as there are more than 90 legal cases and we're just one month in. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Polite Person requested below that there be a centralized discussion about DOGE article fork names. There seemed to be consensus there that this page should just focus on lawsuits, and that the remaining content be transferred into the Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government article. So I've done that. The name for this litigation article isn't resolved yet. Here are some possible titles that are consistent with WP:CRITERIA:

  1. Lawsuits related to the Department of Government Efficiency
  2. Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency
  3. Legal challenges to the Department of Government Efficiency
  4. Department of Government Efficiency litigation
  5. Department of Government Efficiency legal cases

Any of those work for me, with a mild preference for #4, as it's the most concise. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency (or Lawsuits involving DOGE), which is consistent with articles like Lawsuits involving Meta Platforms and Lawsuits involving TikTok. satkara❈talk 00:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 04:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Legal challenges to the Department of Government Efficiency, though I'm also fine with any of the other options. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 07:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There hasn't been any discussion in a few days, so rather than continue to wait, I'm going to move the page. I'll go with Lawsuits involving the Department of Government Efficiency, since that has a bit more support, and we're all OK with it even if it wasn't our first choice. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see here:

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

Resources and article organization

Here are two organizations tracking lawsuits filed against some entity associated with the Trump administration (Trump, DOGE, Musk, Bessent, etc.):

These aren't limited to lawsuits involving DOGE and/or Musk (in his capacity as DOGE advisor), but should include all of those. Depending on how we bound "involving DOGE," there are at least 18 lawsuits.

Right now, this article is partly organized by month and partly by the focus of the suits. I don't see a strong argument for organizing it by the month of filing, but if someone has one, please say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For utility, I think it should divided by focus of the suits. I'm envisioning sections for "data access", "foreign aid", "domestic aid", and "firings and layoffs".
I'd like to work on this, but I'm split between whether it should be in text format or table format.
Maybe a final section on "Supreme Court actions", which summarizes any decisions or actions by the supreme court takes? satkara❈talk 18:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me to organize by topic, and the current table can certainly be broken up so that there's a shorter table for each primary topic. When you say that you're "split between whether it should be in text format or table format," are you thinking that all of the info might go in tables? If so, that potentially means a lot of info in the Notes section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the article text includes suits involving USAID and the CFPB. Those aren't in the table yet, as I was relying on the categorization done by Just Security and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse in determining which suits involved DOGE, and they categorized those suits in a different way. Just raising this as an issue re: how we bound which suits "involve" DOGE or not. Is the intent to include all suits that have Musk and/or DOGE (the USDS and/or the USDSTO) as defendants, and to also include all suits where Musk and/or DOGE play a significant role in the complaint, even if they're not listed as plaintiffs? I'm guessing that it needs to be inclusive, because Trump's EO also introduced "DOGE Teams" into the picture, and those are part of the agencies rather than the White House. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opposition_to_Elon_Musk%27s_role_in_the_US_federal_government
No tags for this post.