Talk:Todd Blodgett

Tone Issue?

Everything on this page was fine for months until someone updated "Bush" to 'George Bush" now there is a tone issue. Why is there an issue now? Thanks! Tndmn (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Compliant Issues Help

Hi. Can someone be of help as to why all of a sudden there are multiple issues on this page when only something small was updated? What would get the notification removed? Thanks! Tndmn (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See here. Also, I have changed the help template as non-administrator users are able to assist. Toast1454_TC 16:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Tndmn, the Reorg and Tone templates were placed on 27 April (diff) by PARAKANYAA and removed the first time on 29 April (diff) by UndamagedGOODs. I agree with the placement of these templates and have restored them after a second removal, because the article suffers from exactly the problems pointed out in those banners. Here's how I see it:

• There is a missing, top-level (H2) section 'Career'. Current top-level sections 2, 3, and 5 should be subsections (H3) under the new, Career section. There should be a new section, 'Personal life', with some of the content of other sections moved there, including half of current section 7, § Drug addiction, recovery, and later business career, with the other half moved to section Career. When that's done, sections 4 and 6 can be looked at for better placement, perhaps as part of a new, 'Politics' or 'Controversy' section.
• Regarding the tone, the lead starts off sounding like a CV or résumé, especially paragraph two. (Paragraph two also violates MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, which is another re-org issue.) I would replace paragraph two with just the initial clause, keeping only "H[e has worked] as a full-time, paid FBI confidential Informant."

The missing element here was the lack of justification for placing the templates. PARAKANYAA, even though your placement was correct, you used neither the |reason= parameter nor the Talk page to explain why you added the templates. Thus, even though your original placement was correct, placing them without justification constitutes drive-by tagging, therefore removing them was also correct.

The article is still in need of work to reorganize it, and fix its tone. Tndmn, I hope this answers your question. If not, you can restore the HelpMe tag. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot The page is aggressively promotional of Blodgett. It makes him sound like he was never a member of the far-right at all and downplays his ties to the far-right, making it seem like it was only something he did as an informant; which is not at all the academic consensus, whether he later pivoted to being an informant or not. There is substantial coverage of his involvement in several academic books and the portrait they paint is very divergent . And I had a comment I just... forgot to post it, for some reason. Oops. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to add much to the conversation, but wanted to clarify that I never removed reorg or tone banners. Just the underlinked one. I agree with all these points and think that, yes, this page needs reworking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UndamagedGOODs (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, np; it happens. Hopefully interested editors will improve it, now that it's been highlighted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

And even if you accept that narrative, it is wildly uninformative about what he was actually doing. It basically glosses over the actual reason he is notable; this reads like a CV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)