Talk:Wasilla, Alaska/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pronunciation

A pronunciation note (I am not sure of the pronunciation, otherwise I'd add it) would be helpful, if some established user knows it for sure. Thanks - Brozhnik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brozhnik (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I just heard Obama refer to it as Wa-silly. That can't be right. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla is pronounced "WAH-sill-ah" according to locals and the Alaska Dept of Commerce; see www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_CIS.htm to locate the Community Information Summary on Wasilla. //Don K. (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla is pronounced "Wah-SILL-a", accent on the second syllable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.204.32 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This last pronunciation key is correct. I lived there for many years. CC 20:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskanAtHeart (talk • contribs)

Semi-protect

May I suggest semi-protection? I just cleaned up some vandalism, and as this is a town related to new Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin I think problems will continue. I'm unsure how to semi-protect it, so if someone else could do the honours? (I logged in after changing the vandalism, so the edit isn't under my name.) Hagger (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are villages of 6 to 8,000 people really cities? Where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.194.193 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In Alaska they are. Eodmo (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can semi-protect. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC) I did it until September 10, 2008. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Population, community size & census data for perspective

Here's some population data found at the AK Dept of Commerce and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. You'll see Wasilla is not such a little town after all: Anchorage 277,498 & Eagle River-Chugiak Est. 30,000

The Matanuska Valley, including Wasilla at Mile 41 out of Anchorage, is a bedroom community of Anchorage, the largest community in Alaska. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Population (including Palmer and Wasilla) is about 80,000 in 2008. By comparison, up north is Fairbanks 29,954 & College 12,186, Kenai has 6,809 while Homer has 5,332. In Southeast, there's Juneau with 30,966, Sitka 8,805 and Ketchikan 7,691. //Don K. Recovering Anchorage Planning Commissioner. Alaska Census data //Don K. (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: For a better presentation of the facts (written in the style and spirit of Wikipedia), see the January 2003 issue of the Alaska Economic Trends published by the Alaska Department of Labor's Research & Analysis section (see http://labor.state.ak.us/trends/jan03.pdf) Alaskans keep trying to tell the American news media people that it's a bit different here and they just don't get it. They just don't seem to be able to shed their biases, pre-conceptions and prejudices. Nearly fifty years ago, before construction of the Parks Highway, the celebrated NBC news Huntly-Brinkley report derisively described the Alaska Railroad as the "Toonerville Trolley" because it stopped for passengers who needed transportation to and from places along the tracks that were between the farflung railroad stations (there were no roads, only the railroad).

Come to think of it, the current version of this article appears to fall well short of Wikipedia's standards for a perfect article. WP:undue speaks of undue weight. A following paragraph includes this thought: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." See wp:npov and wp:bias. I wonder if the substance of this article was better before Sarah Palin was named as the Republican Party Vice-presidential candidate. //Don K. (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Don you can look in the history and see the article was like many stub city articles. Basically a jumble of Census data and some anecdotal info from various IPs. I understand your concern about this article but often anytime something is mentioned in the news, people flock to Wikipedia to do their worst. Don't worry, it's just a matter of time when we can sort out everything and build the article. davumaya 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

"Katie Hurley, is a living hero of Alaska history." POV, and political to boot.66.218.190.100 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I smell a strong whiff of POV in the listing of "notable" people from Wasilla as well. Come on, a porn "star" who didn't even live inside the city limits? Kohring is certainly a convicted former legislator, but that doesn't make him especially noteworthy, or even uncommon. I don't see a similar list for other cities. Katie certainly has a greater claim to fame, including being one of the creators of our constitution. She would dispute the "hero" tag, though.

I would also like to see Mahala Ashley Dickerson added to the list of notable people, but I don't know how to do it. She has a Wikipedia entry. She was Alaska's first black attorney, and a friend of Rosa Parks. Much more important than a porn "star" who would have made a fine ice dancer.--Knik guy (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Vasili/William

"Other sources claim the chief derived his name from the Russian language and that 'Vasili' is a variation of the Russian name 'William'." I haven't edited this, since for all I know it may indeed be what other (uncited and unnamed) sources claim, but William is, of course not, a Russian name. Nor is Vasili the Russian form of the English name William, despite the fact that men named Vasili sometimes use the nickname "Bill" in English-speaking countries. Vasili (Василий) is the Russian form of Basil. WilliamBarrett (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

recently added critisism section

I removed this section as unless there is more out there. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? It has a source. And it reflects on life in Wasilla. Wikipedia isn't about just telling nice things. I'm re-adding. Poggio (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the text we're debating:

Charles Wohlforth, a writer for Frommer's travel guidebook described Wasilla in 1996 as "the worst kind of suburban sprawl of highway-fronting shopping malls and gravel lots."[1] This 1996 comment was reproduced in an opinion that Wohlforth, a self-described Democrat, wrote on Sarah Palin on August 29, 2008.[2]

Poggio (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wolforth reported on the appearance of a boom-and-bust community that experienced a disastrous economic collapse beginning in 1986; investment real estate depreciated by 60%, homes that sold for $79,900 were foreclosed and sold for $12,500 and the FDIC closed more than half the banks in the region shortly before Wolforth came upon the scene. Of course there were unfinished building sites and vacant, poorly-maintained buildings. Berlin didn't look so hot in 1950 either. See wp:undueweight. //Don K. (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Removed untrue statement that this is the second largest hospital in the state. Providence Alaska Medical Center is 342 beds, and Alaska Regional (Anchorage) is 254 bed and I have not even checked other hostials in the state which I am confident a have more than 74 beds. - Lestatdelc (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

Jim Kari, expert on Denaina at the Alaska Native Language Center, says that Chief Wasilla's name is adapted from Russian Vasili and has no Denaina etymology. I don't have a written source for this yet.Bill (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bill! I'm the one who added the place-name etymology, but if Wasilla has no Denaina etymology, then I'd be happy to modify the existing statement. Best regards, --Polylerus (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

City or town

There is a mention of being incorporated as a town in 1974 (unverified) but I see no mention of it being mentioned as a city, surely a grandiose term for such a small community, why is it then referred to in the text several times as a city? Stalfur (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"City" is currently correct. Wasilla is currently a "First Class City" (a class of Alaskan municipal corporation). I am not responsible for the Wasilla article text, but I did research and update the List of cities in Alaska by population article, including verifying Wasilla's "First Class City" status with the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development documents - see that article's "References" section if you want to retrieve a copy of Wasilla's incorporation documents on-file with the Alaska DCED. In both Alaska and Ohio, "cities" are generally municipally incorporated as having over a certain population - I am guessing "5,000" people as of the most recent census if I remember correctly? I can research the specifics if you would like. Alaska uses the terminology "Second Class City" for those with smaller populations, whereas Ohio calls similar smaller municipal corporations "villages". LeheckaG (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, City of Wasilla's Boundary Certificate as amended:ftp://ftp.dcbd.dced.state.ak.us/DCBD/Municipal%20Certificates/Cities/Wasilla.pdf, somewhere there is also the original articles of incorporation or charter on file on-line as well. LeheckaG (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, obviously the concept of town as being between village and city in size is something that I was wondering about. Very different use of terminology there to the west. --Stalfur (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, a community doesn't have to be a specific size to become a city. Alaska has 148 cities, and 20 of them (14%) have population under 100. 123 of them (83%) have a population under 1000. The smallest is Kupreanof with an estimated population of 21 (its 2000 Census population was 23). Phizzy (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the US census, every incorporated locale in Alaska is considered a city! This means that tiny settlements of 43 people are designated "cities" (download the excel chart by scrolling down to "Places in Alaska listed alphabetically"). In contrast, Clarksville, Indiana, a town of 22,000, is able to face the fact that it is a town. So Clarksville has 22,000 residents, while Wasilla only has 7-9,000. Yet Wasilla is a city and Clarksville is a town? I think we can all agree that a locale of 6,000 is a town, not a city, and a locale of 43 is a village, not a city, by media and encyclopedic and academic standards. The distinction between 'relative size' and size is not obvious and calling this place a city is totally misleading to the average reader. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"City" is a legal concept. The competent body to decide what qualifies is the State of Alaska. The notion that we can all agree that the State of Alaska is wrong about the State laws of Alaska strikes me as a more contentious claim than you might realise. As others have noticed, cities in Alaska, and many other States get considerably smaller than Wasilla, down to Cities with populations of zero. It is true that state laws differ over this, with part of the genius of the American system of government being that different communities can come to different conclusions about such things. It appears that you sympathise with the democratically chosen government in Indiana, rather than its Alaskan peer, about where the line should be drawn. This is not the same thing as being able to draw it. Encyclopedias describe the world as it is, not as it should be, and Wasilla is a city, as determined by the great State of Alaska.Jamesofengland (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed "town" to "city" where the word was being used to describe the legal entity rather than a social construct. It is still down as a town for things like the history, but it is the City of Wasilla that owns the airport, for instance, and it ill behoves wikipedians to improve on the name on the deed. Jamesofengland (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other people's notions of "city" provide considerable and presumably unintended hilarity. My personal favorite is this island, of which we read Since 2004 the city comprises the entire island, although not all of its 855.26 square kilometers is urbanized. Actually only a minority of it is urbanized, but with the Japanese love of spreading concrete and asphalt wherever possible (other than for houses themselves, for which forests must be felled), I wouldn't be surprised if much of it is soon suburbanized. Meanwhile, Wasilla strikes me as a dormitory town, or suburb, but I wouldn't want to offend its inhabitants by saying so. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed 'town' to 'city' in some parts of the article again. Please do not do this, it is not simply misleading, it borders on a lie.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I recall someone posting a source showing that Alaska considers any burrough over 47-50 residents to be classed as a city, which is in strong contrast to the true definition of a city. I would be very careful with what definitions you take literally, regardless of what their website is called. Duuude007 (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet again, someone changed it to "city" without any discussion here I see. To whoever changed it,please try to be rational. I'm not sure you could call a town of 8,000 a city even during the renaissance.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change it, but I'm going to change it back. The legal definition, as linked above, appears to be normative. The city's website says it's a city. Alaska law says it's a city. I agree that more populous places are called towns in other states, and that many people's visions of what a "city" should be barely include Anchorage. However, if you'd like to call Wasilla a town, please provide WP:RS support for your position, per WP:BURDEN. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it??? If they call it a city, call it a city. If they call it a town, call it a town. The arugument about population size ect is irrelevant. Stop pushing an agenda here and go with what reliable sources says as always. --Tom 15:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the historical population table

Can someone explain why this historically significant information was taken off and how it can go back on if there's no valid reason for it's removal? (it was previously in "Year" "Population" columns)

Population of Wasilla[6]

Year Population 1940 100 1960 100 1970 300 1980 1,600 1990 4,000 2000 5,470

Here's the reference that went with it:

6. ^ Lahmeyer, Jan (February 11, 2003). "Historical Demographical Data of the Urban Centers: United States of America: Alaska". Population Statistics. Retrieved on 2008-08-30. --Jeux de mots (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeux de mots (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 

I didn't remove it, so put it back, but include the CURRENT Census 2007 estimate of 9,780. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-02.xls

--Sturmde (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Government

Should there be mention of what the structure of the local government is, council-manager form or strong mayor? This makes a major difference in local politics and the role of the mayor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairidge (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's "Strong Mayor", see http://www.codepublishing.com/ak/wasilla.html for the city code describing the government, especially 2.16.020: "The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005". --Knik guy (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Churches: too much detail, too much weight

The section on churches have far too much information for a mere section in an article of a municipality, thus having a problem with WP:UNDUE. Detailed church histories belong in standalone articles about the churches themselves, but those churches would have merited those articles only on the notability of the churches themselves (and not of parishioners). Keep in mind if Wikipedia has similarly presented articles or sections (on the city article) for the home town churches of, say, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, or Albert Gore, Jr. (NOTE: there's no mention of any churches in the article for a similar-sized Hope, Arkansas). Why the difference?147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some town articles list churches, others do not; perhaps the article on Hope, Arkansas lists none because no one has chosen to write such a section. I extracted this material from articles on the two churches, one deleted; the other currently subject to AFD. Most local churches are non-notable, like primary schools, and other local things that exist in many towns. Their adherents frequently seek to create articles on them, which end off being deleted. Including something on them in the town article provides a good compromise. Articles on places in my own area of England produce the same issues. I only extracted the minimal amount of material to provide a brief history and description of each church, the article having elemetns of WP:COATRACK in them, which are omitted. I am on a different side of the world and not well-qualified to determine whehter they are or are not features of the town worthy of mention. I would recommend that this is left alone for the moment, as there has already been too much controversy associated with the subject of these churches. This will blow over in a few months, once the Presidential election is over: that will be the time to consider whether what I have put is too much or too little. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The churches should have their own articles so too much info does not go here. But others have blocked this, saying all church info must go to here on Wasilla.

• Wasilla Bible Church redirects to here. Can you help get them their own pages so they can be minimally discussed here? EricDiesel (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin category

Why was this category removed? If no good rationale, I am putting it back. KConWiki (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church should have its own article, it redirects to Wasilla

Wasilla Bible Church should have its own article, it redirects to Wasilla. EricDiesel (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It did have one, as I think you know. You can still get at what there was if you go to the redirect page (by clicking the name if the article when it tells you it was redirected; then look at history, which lists its old versions, which you can open, but not edit, as it is protected. However, I retain the view that this is a typically non-notable church, which does not need an article of its own. The present redirect target results from a request that I made and is more appropriate than a redirect to Sarah Palin. If you disagree, you need to do so at WP:deletion review, not here, but too much of what was there failed WP:COATRACK. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I am putting this talk subject here in case info is kept off on the grounds that there is too much on WBC, in which case the Wasilla Bible Church article shuold be restored, or the information should be allowed here. Otherwise there will be neutral information kept off of Wikipedia, it having no article it is allowed on. It certainly should NOT go on Sarah Palin article, tarring her with guilt by association, especially since she left the church BEFORE the controversial sermons were given.

Peterkingiron, could you check my edits putting information into David Brickner and Wasilla Bible Church to make sure I have eleimnated the possiblity of Coathanger, NPOV, NN, and other objections? I am new and being coached on wording to eliminate the possiblity of coathanger, and I think it has been achieved. No one is making Coathanger deletions with explanations for WHY Coathanger anymore, they just say Coathanger and delete, without responding to arguments on talk pages. Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, Why is "the church prays to make gays heteros" a Coathanger?

"In September 2008 the church promoted a conference to pray for the conversion of gays to become heterosexual." Was deleted as coathanger. What is it a coathanger for? EricDiesel (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that WP:COAT is not a wikipedia policy, it is merely an essay, it is being quoted extensively as a reason to delete Wasilla Assembly of God as well as to delete certain edits to that page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming it was a policy, why would it be a coathanger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack Compromise Proposal

• Coatrack Compromise Proposal - I just noticed that everyone seems in agreement on the latest neutral "gays" info, having survived for a "whole day", and it now being the "big" "permanent notable" story. And everone seems to agree that Palin should NOT be mentioned here, or this WILL become a coatrack. However, in fairness to Palin, who just happened to be sitting there when Brickner said his thing, I like the fact that the reference source is titled "Palin rejects views of church’s Jews for Jesus speaker", so no one will turn this into a coatrack, as they will give up trying to smear Palin with this, after just reading the title of the reference. So I propose if someone finds another more familiar source (which are out there now), that the source with the "Palin rejects views" stay in, so no one bothers to try tarring her with this stuff, thus creating a coatrack, when the current state auto-self-protects against coatrack.

To sum up, leave the reference be, not only in fairness to Palin (there's plenty to attack on, if thats your thing) , but to keep this from being used as a coatrack. EricDiesel (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"unnecessary POV nonsense"

In this edit, JimBoomJohn (contributions) deleted It has been controversial, including having anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual speakers as a characterization of Wasilla Bible Church sourced to an specified article in Time. Does it really appear in Time? While I'm not impressed by Time, I didn't think it normally published POV nonsense. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The source citation did not include an online link to the Time article, which is here. At first glance it looks like half that comment is a misinterpretation of the source and the other half is not even as good as misinterpreting the source. Search for "Bible" in the article and read that paragraph and the next one.

However, the line was added in this edit, when the Time source was already present. In other words, an unsourced line was added, and the Time article has nothing to do with the line. GRBerry 03:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rape kits, legislation regarding

Sources of Info, good and bad

Here[3],“Make the Victim Pay”, is one source of info, but reliability may be questionable. Tautologist (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Sarah Palin, past Mayor and current Vice-presidential candidate in the U.S. is the subject of the 2nd paragraph. It seems the likely reason for the 3rd paragraph is to disparage Sarah Palin by alleging then-Governor Tony Knowles initiated statewide legislation mainly to force the City of Wasilla to stop charging rape victims for the cost of obtaining forensic evidence. The reference is USA Today, not an Alaskan newspaper. Perhaps somebody is working hard to dig up dirt to make ammunition for mud-slingers. I'm new to Wikipedia's community. Isn't this a "point of view" issue? //Don K. (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Joeycfc (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Large Earmarks and Second Bridge to Nowhere

I wrote that after former Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin hired the former chief of staff for Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens as a lobbyist, Wasilla residents became among the most fortunate recipients of federal largesse in the nation, receiving in excess of $6 million dollars for the town then with a population of about 6,000. In 2005, Wasilla received national attention when a bridge providing secondary access to Wasilla was dubbed one of the two “Bridge to Nowhere” projects by fiscal conservatives, pointing to the two bridges as examples of pork barrel spending. Palin reversed her support of one Bridge to Nowhere, but not the bridge that would provide access to Wasilla. The 2008 estimate of the construction costs for the bridge that would service Wasilla is $1 billion. My sources were Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress, CARL HULSE, New York Times, November 17, 2005, and The Fairy Tale of Palin the Reformer, Joe Conason , New York Observer, September 9, 2008. User:Aunt Entropy deleted this material citing coatrack (for Stephens?) and not relvant, with no comment on the talk pages. Then the entire section was deleted the talk page, in addition to deleting information and sources from the article section. EricDiesel (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• User:Aunt Entropy, I did not understand your deletions of information in the Wasilla article. I assume that by "coatrack" you mean "coat", since a "coatrack" refers to an article or section, and a "coat" is a statement or collection of statements that obscure the nominal subject, i.e. large earmarks that directly affect Wasilla. I further assume you are claiming they are coats for either Stephens or Palin, though you did not specify. Since the information would be relevant to the subject of the section even if the names Stephens and Palin were relaced by other names, such as a different mayor or chief of staff of a different US Senator known for obtaining large earmarks, they are not coats. Similarly, the information would be notable for any other small town that has this distinction, so is relevant. Anticipating another objection you did not cite, the words used were those occuring in the sources, though rearranged so as to be about the section title. Please explain your deletion. Thnx. 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left the part that is relevant to Wasilla. The rest was more relevant to the Palin or Stevens page. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat; the talk page isn't a mirror of the article. It's not for simply posting a repeat of what you add to the article. It's for discussing changes. And it doesn't look like you want to discuss this at all. You wish to edit war. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say "You wish to edit war." as the first thing you write. It does not show an assumption of good faith. Editors can not have an edit war on a talk page, since no material is ever to be deleted. Since you deleted the information from the talk page, it will be difficult for others to know what my remarks above respond to, and for other editors to contribute to the discussion. I am therefore undoing your second revert of talk page material. (It is assumed that talk pages are complete histories.) EricDiesel (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy, the particluar mention of Stephens and Palin and the information as to how they relate to Wasilla clarifies the particular large earmarks and the second bridge to nowhere, rather than obscuring it. So it is not a coat per the definition in the essay on coatracks. In this case, mention of Palin clarifies the time of the large earmark, and the time status of the bridge. In general, if someone is acting as mayor of a town, for the town, a statement of this is not a coat. Similarly, mention of who the lobbyist clarifies how Wasilla achieved this success (or failure, depending on perspective). Mention of the bridge not having been shut down provides further clarification, especially as it is a fact that one might find informative about the town. Please let me know what you think about these issues. EricDiesel (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Aunt Entropy, I admit that my original contrib looks like a coatrack compared to the current version. But I hate being wrong in public, so will someone please start a different edit war so no one sees me groveling here? (I still think mention of Palin and Stephens would help here, but maybe after the election is the time to put it in.) EricDiesel (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the jargon of "coatracks" or whatever, but the information on Wasilla's highly unusual success in securing Federal earmarks, and who was responsible, deserves to stay in. I also note that unidentifiable unregistered users are deleting material. This should be prevented by an administrator. --Zeamays (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted assumptions that Wasilla suddenly enjoyed unusual success in securing federal funding apparently created confusion and resentment -- even in the Wikipedia community. In fact, "In 1965, the federal government represented a third of Alaska’s gross state product. By 1998 the federal contribution had dwindled to 13 percent." [Depart. Labor "Trends"] Wasilla is the predominant business and residential core of the Matanuska Valley, a few hundred square miles that recently experienced dramatic population increases. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough (County) website indicates the current population within 15 miles of Wasilla is nearly 80,000; as I recall, it was closer to 40,000 in 1990. You'll find the facts at http://labor.state.ak.us/trends/jan03.pdf.

As to the Knik Arm Crossing (the 2nd Bridge to Nowhere), I was the senior member of the Anchorage Municipal Planning & Zoning Commission who, circa 2000, initiated the motion that produced the study of whether the bridge should be built. Uncertainty about whether or not there would be a bridge that provided close access to hundreds of square miles of land suitable for community development complicated the land use planning process in Anchorage. Travel time between Anchorage and Wasilla will not change if the new route is developed -- the bridge provides no benefit to Wasilla, Palmer or the Valley except a choice of routes. Visit the website for the Knik Arm project to get the facts.

My faith in American journalists diminishes every time I see an article involving something familiar to me. It's better to realize the news media is entertainment, not a source of reliable information. How can one form an informed opinion based on bad information? //Don K. (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Auntentropy, Please do not delete sections from talk pages

User:Aunt Entropy, Please do not deleted sections and signed comments from talk pages. Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is not for simply repeating what you add to the article without comment. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric, Aunt Entropy is correct. Please stop. Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

per Kelly, I added "comment" accidentally omitted by cutting the wrong section from my word processor. But Kelly, Aunt Entropy is not right for stating that I wish to start an edit war. I have been waiting for a response to my questions and have not undone the revert in the article. EricDiesel (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad memory, perhaps?[4] That's not starting an edit war? Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. EricDiesel (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Meth Problem

So who's gonna say it? i mean i admit it i heard it on snl like everyone else and i did a good amount of research and found that its actually the majority of local and state police and officials who call it the meth capital of alaska (they are the ones who would know), and i briefly heard about connections with big pharma. im too lazy to cite sources. but someone def needs to put in a drug problem section for wasilla, alaska.--Redskies08 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're "too lazy to cite sources", nobody will believe your claim that you "did a good amount of research". -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I undid reverts by the agenda pushing Kelly for the crime portion of this page. I linked an article per her request and she reverted (again)!!! BristollovesLevi (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Get a better source than a blog, please. Kelly ^hi! 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• What better source than the Associated Press? [5] Wasilla is the Meth Capital of Alaska, says Troopers Duuude007 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not what it says: "The Matanuska-Susitna area is the methamphetamine capital of Alaska, according to Alaska State Troopers." The Matanuska-Susitna area is one of the most densely populated areas in Alaska and wasilla only comprises a small part of this area. Maybe you were confused by the byline that states the story was filed from Wasilla? Hardyplants (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS to add some clarity, the area covered by the above news story is 24,000 square miles while the size of Wasilla is only like 20 square miles. Hardyplants (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

just to add some clarity. "Sarah Palin’s responsibilities included funding “the meth capitol of Alaska,” as Alaskan State Troopers call the Wasilla region: “When authorities surrounded a converted bus housing a meth operation in Big Lake in January, a 13-year-old boy who answered the door bragged that his mom cooked the best meth in the valley, according to the troopers.”" --Redskies08 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe your confused... or deliberately making things up. There is no Wasilla region it has a specific boarder and the "valley" is 25,000 square miles of area. Why distort the information in the news story? see Matanuska. Hardyplants (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s the news story says the drug bust occurred in BIG LAKE not Wasilla. Hardyplants (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

im glad to see ive been vindicated by a ligit sourced statement about sarah palin's dirty little meth secret, haha,...hahahahahaha...HA, score one!...--Redskies08 (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

To quote my edit summary: "NPOV: This is supposed to be a general description of the town; minutiae from Palin's record as mayor does not serve that purpose and is politically tainted; justify, or remove the content."

I think it a better idea to resolve these issues here, rather than resort to an edit war. I suppose we can compromise and start a separate article, something to the effect of: Controversies in Wasilla politics, but, you know, we already have the Mayoralty of Sarah Palin article for that; I really don't see why we need an identical page for the town. SchutteGod (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Receiveing among the largest per capita earmarks, or having a $1 billion bridge coming in, or charging rape victims for rape kits, is not "minutiae". It would be one of the more notable features of any city of any size. I deleted Palins name so as not to have disputes, but someone else is likely to restore it, as her name would be mentioned for this in an article if she were not running. EricDiesel (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Maybe we should dig into the policies and record of the current mayor, then? I'm sure there's plenty of dirt to harvest there! You're only citing this trivia because it was part of Palin's record, which means this stuff would be better reserved for the articles about Palin or her mayoral term -- and they already are cited there, so I don't see why it's so important they be discussed here. This is supposed to be a general description of the town, and policies the town government pursued in the 1990s don't really fit that criterium. Tell me again why the section about the town's government structure needs to include fun facts about how Palin allegedly tried to screw over rape victims and federal taxpayers in the '90s? SchutteGod (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EricDiesel. Contrary to SchutteGod this is not minutia, nor it is "dirt", but factual material that has been published in many reliable outlets. Keep in mind that unfavorable material about a town is not justification for deletion. The article about my hometown (not Wasilla) mentions several unpleasant facts I wish hadn't happened there, but they did, and the embarrassment resulting from them is no reason such inconvenient facts should be deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The notion that Sarah Palin is responsible for a host of things that happened or began during the tenure of other Mayors of Wasilla (including Harold Newcomb) will greatly relieve some of my relatives (mostly in-laws and outlaws). My sister-in-law and other family members say our guilt by association ended when Harold got divorced from another relative. This is great news! Sarah's responsible for everything! //Don K. (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is notable and accurate. This is normal information about a hometown. QuackGuru 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue other users have with this information is WP:WEIGHT because the article portrays the town as if nothing happened until the last decade and skews the portrayal (WEIGHT) of the town to some degree of importance that it never had (see WP:NOTNEWS). Many town articles have nothing said of them until something happens on CNN (see Crandon, Wisconsin). But I have to agree all this information does have a source. It seems unfortunate to "bash" a town on Wikipedia but really it encourages you to research more information on Wasilla's past and other sections (Economy, Arts, etc) in order to balance out the negative stuff. davumaya 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, the portion on the controversies has not been removed, but incorporated into the History section, and lumped together with an existing paragraph explaining that Palin's selection as the GOP's VP nominee has affected the tone of the article. The grafs are now under a subheader titled "Past controversies." As these facts are historical in nature, I figured "History" was a better place for them. I hope this meets with approval. NPOV tag removed. SchutteGod (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to care about history, I did it myself. Voila, we have a balanced history section. davumaya 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rev2 on Palin material

I'm thinking Palin materal should be moved to the Government section now. When considering the history of a town, how much did her "issues" have an affect on the place itself? Not very long-term it seems. davumaya 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it really matters

According to City of Wasilla's Boundary Certificate as amended:ftp://ftp.dcbd.dced.state.ak.us/DCBD/Municipal%20Certificates/Cities/Wasilla.pdf, the city is about one sq mile larger than the article states. (1 sq mile = 640 acres)Nitpyck (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)