Talk:Coachella Valley Church

Uncertain date of foundation

It's not clear where the 1975 date came from. It appears on some less-reliable things online. The parent group was incorporated in Iowa in 2016. The USA Today source states "It operates in a 1925 San Jose mansion that formerly housed the Amsterdam's Garden medical marijuana dispensary, shut down last year by San Jose city officials in a citywide crackdown on dispensaries" so it has been at its current location since 2016 at the earliest. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are correct. The San Jose Mercury News article also suggests that the operators are the previous owners. The Superior Court case also lists the same defendants. NaturaNaturans (talk)

1975 is when the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church was first established in Iowa. 2016 is when the California branch of the EZCC was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homewoodhilton (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Any relation to the Coachella Valley of Southern California? The church with that namesake is in the Santa Clara Valley or County in Northern Cal. 500 miles apart. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to present a neutral point of view wp:NPOV. Removing facts presented by sources in order to aggressively present a particular point of view is aggressive POV-pushing. We can nominate the article for dispute but should not engage in an edit war.

Coachella Valley Church is notable due to several articles that describe it as marijuana dispensary operating as a church. It is also listed and described as a marijuana dispensary by various other sources. It was not founded in 1975 according to any source but in 2016 according to the CA Secretary of State. The history of litigation and ongoing issues is also what is notable about this 'Church'. NaturaNaturans (talk)

The fact is that the CA Secretary of State and IRS legally recognizes this organization as a church. Anyone who begs to differ, please provide evidence that it is not. The unreliable "sources" NaturaNaturans is referencing includes Yelp and Weedmaps which are mere advertising sites. To make suggestive statements such as "alleged" is biased and irresponsible. Also referencing Amsterdams Garden, a prior operation at the same location, does not prove that it is the same operators. Making assumptions like "the history of litigation" is again biased. We do not know if the current are the same operators, that is a matter for the courts to decide. As of to date there are no formal charges, in fact county records shows the city vacated the case. Whoever is editing this article is doing a poor job of sticking with the facts. This should not be an opinion piece.

The entity is not notable because it is a "Church". It is notable because it is in a battle with the city declaring itself a Church while the city says it is a marijuana dispensary. You cannot just write the article without leading with the fact that there is this dispute. That's what brings it here. WP:N

As for the sources, a Yelp source is not necessary to state that the city calls this place a marijuana dispensary. That is clearly stated in multiple articles sourced that you keep removing. They are indeed "alleged" to be a dispensary. Also, nobody is trying to "prove" anything, just stating what the articles say. By the way, you may want to look up WP:SOCK before you get banned. NaturaNaturans (talk)

Neither ignoring the problems with the city nor using loaded terms like "claim" is going to make this article NPOV. So I've waded in and rewritten most of it. I've shortened the summary of beliefs because readers can read about Rastafari theology via links and/or on its own website. I think we should report the city's legal moves via news coverage, not primary court documents, and there must surely be coverage in the press of the history, including the dispensary previously at the location. But for now I hope my bold action has helped put a stop to the edit warring and provided a workable structure for the article. (I also got the coordinates and gave us a new picture, though it's a gloomy day today.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I boldly restored this independent, NPOV rewrite after Bbb23's GF effort to repair effects of socking on the page. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the neutrality of this article

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.

---

Various names are editing this article to lead with details about its operation as a Church. However, the news sources themselves question whether or not it is actually a marijuana dispensary operating as a Church and the City is trying to shut down their operations. The notability of this article is due based on this dispute between the City which calls it a marijuana dispensary and the 'Church'. I edited it to be more even handed and include details of the dispute in the lead but keep getting reverted by various names (who may or may not be the same person or group trying to push their side of this dispute). Its current form is biased and misleading trying to bury the claims that this newly formed 'Church' is actually a marijuana dispensary. NaturaNaturans (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that if it is registered as a tax-exempt church, and calls itself a church, it is a church. They may also be providing substances in a matter the city attorney doesn't like. It is very, very difficult to determine what is a "legitimate" church and probably a fool's errand for this encyclopedia. Instead let's simply follow the sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the entity being a church. The dispute here is about highlighting the fact that it is being accused of operating an illegal marijuana dispensary by the City of San Jose. NaturaNaturans (talk)

Maybe to prevent miscommunication it would be best to discuss a specific change in wording, a diff to restore, or something specific like that. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Here's the diff: [1] (ignore the Yelp citation). NaturaNaturans (talk)

The facts (with several sources) that are being deleted:

• Coachella Valley Church is an alleged San Jose marijuana dispensary that operates as a church.
• The entity was incorporated in the state of California in 2016 and is located at the same location as a previous dispensary, Amsterdam Gardens.
• The City of San Jose has a history of litigation against its operators and is currently seeking to end their operations.

The only facts they want to present in the lead:

• Coachella Valley Church is the first Rastafari-based registered church in the U.S. state of California. Coachella Valley Church is an Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church in San Jose that uses cannabis as a sacrament and is a monotheistic religion that believes in a single God referred to as Jah. (no source)

NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect your three points are properly informative. This may be a short-term issue, depending on the outcome of the dispute with the city. But it would be good to include these more informative points as the matter evolves. Jzsj (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree. NaturaNaturans (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I support the view that the issue should be highlighted in the lead. I favour the statement: "The City of San Jose has a history of litigation against its operators and is currently seeking to end their operations." over the others which are a little too broad. Gumsaint (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Sock Puppets

Please note: several editors of this page have been banned for being sock puppets of the creator of this page. See here: [2]. Hope this person stops this disruptive behavior and understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a means of spinning the content or using as an advertisement. NaturaNaturans (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)