Talk:Wasilla Bible Church

Content

I accept that this was an article on a non-notable subject that needed to be removed. However the best solution for NN churches is to merge some content to an article on the twon where it is. I have done that and would request that the redirect be changed to Wasilla, Alaska. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect should be to the town. I believe this solution may even help a little fight anysort of WP:COATRACKing. Or at least I hope so. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If this article was really about Wasilla Bible Church, then a section entitled Controversy would deal with a controversy within the church. It would at least reflect the opinions of members of the church. Instead, it is a classic coatrack forum shift to a manufactured "controversy" that suits a particular political agenda. This is further illustrated by the mention of only one "notable congregant". Many "notable" people are members, at least by the standards of the church. So why is this page still here, at least in its current form? If wikipedia really wants an informational page on Wasilla Bible Church, just ask the staff (or me, since I'm a member).

OK, this is still a coatrack article, but I pulled out the worst examples, and added some specific items about the church theology. Also tried to get the "Controversy" section closer to NPOV. It's still pretty bad.--Knik guy (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, and will therefore be bold enough to change the redirect now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Or not... protected... should this be mentioned at the RfD? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is protected so that WP:COATRACKy people don't simply recreate the article that used to exist. It's not the best solution but, I'm trusting our admins on it for now. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made mention of it at the RfD... hopefully it works... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, and it's already mentioned on the Wasilla article. In any other circumstance, standard practice would be a delete or a redirect to the town; redirecting to Palin gives undue weight to her religious views, IMO. justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am always encouraged when I see the power of the Bible and true Christianity affecting people to the extent they have to "delete" or "remove" the page from the internet. It only proves how powerful the Bible is. No matter how much society tries to "remove" the truth mentioned on a web page, it will always stand strong and firm...PRAISE GOD, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.58 (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire page was made solely with the intention of smearing Governor Palin. I agree with the user before me 100%, but this page should probably be deleted as an attack page. 192.77.143.150 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section is slanted if it does not reference both sides of both controversies. It needs to contain the original TIME publication concerning the homosexual controversy, which it does. But this excerpt only presents the issue from one side. It is objective to include some reference to the pastor's response in the Fox News (a main stream and reputable media outlet) interview he conducted with Greta Van Susteren on Sep 9. Additionally, the David Brickner comment, which is rightfully controversial, should have both sides. The Atlantic Weekly's perspective, reflective of much media, is represented. However, his response, which is reported by NBC and MSNBC (both reputable media outlets), should also be included in some manner to maintain an NPOV in this article. Likewise, in this instance, it is reasonable to provide a link to the manuscript of his sermon, which I have confirmed by visiting the site, is still posted on the website of Wasilla Bible Church. (Rhetoricandreality (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

I have tidied up the article, by (1) saying that Brickner "claimed" instead of "stated". His view is a controversial POV, but I presume he expressed it. This wording means that WP is not supporting his view, enabling me to eliminate the "dubious" tag; (2) deleting the section about Palin's attendence, leaving her listed as a noted congregant (with reference). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC):

Thank you. A more accurate and impartial clean-up would indicate that, at most, Brickner "implied"... This becomes particularly apparent when the entire transcript is read and you realize that within the entire context Brickner was using this recent instance as an example of the ongoing unrest experienced in Jerusalem and in the rest of the world. This ongoing unrest and violence worldwide is what Brickner refers to as God's judgement on the human race as a whole. He chose a very poor example to illustrate his point, but his point was not directed against any one people group. Rather it was directed against the human race as a whole. That is why the NBC interview with him and the reference to the full transcript is important. The statement only became as controversial as it is because a blogger first ripped it out of context, did some paraphrasing to lead up to the quote, and then threw it out there. And the vast majority of people are too busy to actually look over the original transcript and read the quote in context for themselves. As a result, people commonly just presume he expressed it, and continue to report it as paraphrased.(Rhetoricandreality (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

I have not listened to the lecture. I assume you have. I was merely trying to provide NPOV wording. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

tweak redirect

{{editprotect}}

Please tweak the redirect to : Wasilla, Alaska#Churches Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done GRBerry 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

I found no corporate record for a prior name for any Wasilla church. All are still active except for an involuntary dissolution of a Lutheran church, which is not relevant. With the articles of incorporation being dated Jan 2, 1979, the odds are high that this is the only name ever used on a church building for this congregation. See myalaska,state.ak.us . Collect (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Looks like time for all material not actually related to the church or which is unsourced to be pruned, Collect (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Ltwin (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is closer to being an article on the church itsaelf now than it has been for quite some time. Collect (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if anyone else thinks this paragraph might be a little POV?

The church has a reserved practice, more consistent with the strict interpretation of one biblical passage, Matthew 6:6, as compared in the media with more extroverted Wasilla churches that also advocate literal interpretation of the Bible. In sharp contrast with other Wasilla churches, such as Wasilla Assembly of God that preaches strongly against Democrats, Wasilla Bible Church preaches value for all public servants. Kroon has said, “I value all our politicians, [our] public servants. . . . I don't care if it's Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin. I think it's a noble thing to step into that arena.”[5]Ltwin (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for sure! Collect (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think should be the way to approach the whole homosexuality issue? To me its not notable, but I guess people have made it notable, because alot of evangelical churches believe that a persons sexuality can me changed to what they believe is natural. I don't know if it should be taken out, but I think the current paragraph is NPOV.Ltwin (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We could end up with a stub ... Collect (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Which shows that the only reason this church is notable is for Sarah Palin.Ltwin (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup details. I made several minor edits to fix a URL, delete another URL that's no longer relevant, and clarified the wording as mentioned below. I tried to include this photo (http://flickr.com/photos/30017165@N00/3376161797/) per the request above, but I don't know enough about posting photos on Wikipedia. FYI, I'm a member of this church. KSlauson (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

nonsensical sentence

"enabling Wasilla to buy 20 acres in Wasilla." What is this supposed to mean ? The wording of this sentence needs to be reconsidered by someone who knows what it is supposed to mean.Eregli bob (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The US usage is that "acres" is understood to mean "acres of land." The original sentence, IIRC, was that the first "Wasilla" was "the church" ... Collect (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)