Talk:Armstrong & Getty

message: I'm trying to fix this page, but someone reverted it calling it vandalism. The current page is in horrible condition.--Anchordesk (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to fix this 

message: I'm not going to edit this because I have no idea how to handle speculation, but it is highly likely that Jack Armstrong (or, to be specific, the man who uses the air name of "Jack Armstrong") is either seperated or divorced from his wife as of spring 2006.  It should certainly be noted that both men's lives are not quite in alignment with their on-air personalities.  They both reveal certain aspects of their "personal life", some of which are dryly fictional (some obviously, like "Jack Junior", and some less obviously).
* Though he is currently separated from his wife of nearly 10 years.
** I think I wrote the original paragraph above (before I was using my account).  Regardless, he announced on 2006-11-8 that he is going through a divorce.  He also said that he didn't want to talk about it.  I'm going to quote exactly what was said when I can find the precise segment on the podcast.  I wrote a bad paragraph about it, and don't have time to really sit and rewrite it, but if somebody wants to rewrite it, that's fine, but I'll come back in a couple days with a supporting quote re: the divorce. Sorry for the quickie edit, but I figured the citation itself (the date of the broadcast) was an important thing to toss in to the article.  JabberWokky 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the topic their program is both current events and their family and personal lives, it is appropriate in an article discussing their show to also discuss their family and personal lives in a cursory manner, including such basic details as children, marital status, and the existence of (but not details of) a divorce. Getting into lurid details is inappropriate, I agree, but I have not seen anything even bordering on that in this article. So long as it is discussed on the air by the hosts themselves and it is within the relevant scope of this article, it is appropriate for publication. Addisonstrack 03:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack Divorced?

message: On the day Jack announced his engagement, a caller asked if it was Jamie Coffee.  That seems to have created an internet rumor.  At that time Jack laughed it off.  On 2008-01-14, 8am hour, roughly 32 minutes in the KNEW podcast, he specifically disclaims this rumor. Does removing incorrect information need a citation on the actual article?  Also, as a note to anybody trying to make this article more cited to the source, the podcasts from various stations and the live show all have different times due to different commercials (the live show on all stations have the same time).  It is important to note the specific source if you cite a time into an episode.  A good chunk of this entry is easily citable (some of it trivially citable), but it would be a shame if, as they were added, they were ambiguous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.165.28 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been corrected, no longer an issue, don't worry Bullercruz1 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or Gossip? 

message: This article clearly needs to be cleaned up, and have the opinion and speculation taken out. It reads more like a teen diary than an encyclopedia. However, some vandals keep reverting my edits.--Anchordesk (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  After a quick read-through, I think Anchordesk's version is much better.  I started this stub (way back when) and others keep adding gossip and other fansite-type opinions and speculation.  Good job on the clean up and I will help monitor for vandalism.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up/re-write 

message: Honestly! This isn't even a sentence:
Jack Armstrong, who is rumored to have once killed a man. 
Update: That sentence originally had a comma at the end followed by more words to form a complete sentence.  Through the numerous additions, the comma became a period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.33.42 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is silly vandalism from people who think that they have the right to add whatever they want because they do not understand how Wikipedia works. Take a look at the talk page of most editors, it is a string of vandalism warnings. Don't take those silly rumors seriously. Bullercruz1 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rumors 

message: This page is no longer valid because of the rampant vandalism caused by otherwise authorized users. This is because users do not understand that Wikipedia is not meant for poops and giggles, and if you want to tell a story start a blog or write a book!! The small amount of information within this page is lost amid a poor structure and a torrent of nonsense and this page flies in the face of the encyclopedia in whole! I request full protection of the page and only Referenced content be able to be added by Admins. This has gone on for too long. Bullercruz1 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Huge thanks to User:Juliancolton, whose protection has allowed me to fix the page unreverted and correctly Bullercruz1 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely Destroyed by Vandalism 

message: Those who are true show fans, we know the content of this article is true, but I am hoping that users can help me scour podcasts and references to help source factual information in the current article. Thank you! Bullercruz1 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding references 

message: I would like to add a bit of information to the interesting facts section. I will find the podcast to cite, but A&G were friends with Glenn Beck before he became a political sensation and have had him on the show recently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetracide (talk • contribs) 18:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a way to form that into an encyclopedic bit of information? Because the fact that Glenn Beck was on the show in itself is not encyclopedic. Possibly if you wanted to you could look up a list of well-known political/cultural figures that have been on the show and that could be useful information to put on the page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullercruz1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Facts 

message: It is stated in the Notable Facts section that Fisher House founder Zachary Fisher commented on the "incredible" results of the October 2011 fundraiser. This does not seem possible, since the article on Zachary Fisher claims he died in 1999. Does anyone know what is going on here? 67.186.255.103 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zachary Fisher 

message: I have removed the section "Controversial comments on Islam", which has been unsourced since at least September 2012. This is a WP:BLP issue, and the only sources I could find were blogs and forum blather. Any attempt to restore this content needs reliable sources. Again, since this is a biographies of living people issue, sources are not optional. If the interruption of their program for a bomb-threat can be verified with reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources, then it can be included. Otherwise it does not belong in the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Controversial comments on Islam" 

message: This section has an odd choice of verb tense:
::On July 28, 2010, Armstrong and Getty were tipped off by a listener that a fellow radio talk show host, Doug Stephan, had been stealing audio material from the Armstrong and Getty show, editing the audio, and using it in his show in an attempt to portray it as if he is speaking to their caller.
The "is" should be "were", i.e. subjunctive or conditional, depending on your preference for terminology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynasteria (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb tense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armstrong & Getty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313133559/http://www.sacmag.com:80/media/Sacramento-Magazine/November-2008/The-Best-of-Sacramento-2008/Media/Local-Morning-Drive-Radio-Team/ to http://www.sacmag.com/media/Sacramento-Magazine/November-2008/The-Best-of-Sacramento-2008/Media/Local-Morning-Drive-Radio-Team/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Armstrong & Getty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacmag.com/media/Sacramento-Magazine/November-2008/The-Best-of-Sacramento-2008/Media/Local-Morning-Drive-Radio-Team/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801032940/http://www.radio-info.com/news/doug-stephans-side-of-the-armstrong-getty-phone-bit-incident-a-mistake to http://www.radio-info.com/news/doug-stephans-side-of-the-armstrong-getty-phone-bit-incident-a-mistake
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If you think you're doing some good by coming on here and acting as a janitor, how about actually making this article worth reading?
First of all, the show is called "The Armstrong and Getty Show". "Armstrong and Getty" is beyond informal, it takes away from the context. The show has been on 19 years, they've had thousands of guests including every reporter and celebrity to ever go on a press circuit. They air nationally and are heard internationally. Their success with Fisher House fundraising alone should warrant an paragraph on The Fisher House Foundation Page, covering it here should have been a given. No mention of awards. No mention of consistent popularity. No mention of their cultural impact. Dominick Brascia should have a paragraph.  Timothy Sandefur should have a section, notable? He credits this show for inspiration as he argues before the Supreme Court. 
There have been many notable events, interviews, stunts, controversies. Their Muslim comments controversy has been scrubbed. There's a picture of them at a Tea Party rally and no mention of their involvement. They have hosted many events, worked with numerous politicians including Congresspeople, governors, local mayors, state legislators. Their words were played before Congress. They have been active in numerous political efforts with elected officials from across the U.S. as guests and supporters. If ONE of these events had happened with another radio show, or any program in any medium it would warrant inclusion. If only a couple of the dozens of notable events had occurred with one person who was otherwise unknown to the world, it would have justified an article for that person. Joe the Plumber's article is about 5 times the length and he has done nothing! He was a punchline on a single campaign stop of a failed political candidate. The Armstrong and Getty Show broadcast live from the Republican National Convention and the Inauguration. They have effectively established themselves as the west coast source for counterculture and social activists from Milo Yiannopoulos to Mike Rowe. Often they break the news and the rest of the media doesn't even cover it. They are The Voice of the West. 
Yet here we have a couple poorly written paragraphs that leave all of this out and only include a single minor spat with another radio host who stole their material. Pathetic. Before you go editing this again, claiming ownership. What exactly are you owning? The most pathetic and underdeveloped article  Wikipedia Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources with a strong preference for independent sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or advertising, so calling them "The Voice of the West" is completely unacceptable without clearly attributing that promotional sloganism to a reliable source. Your personal opinion about what belongs is irrelevant, so please find reliable sources for all of these important things, otherwise they are not important by Wikipedia's standards. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is Pathetic