Talk:Joseph Al-Zehlaoui

Added scandal section

Howdy!

I noticed that this article lacked any serious discussion around the deposition of Met. Joseph, and I wanted to properly fill in the information needed to paint a fair picture of the situation. I tried to avoid using any sort of questionable source (such as the Daily Beast article on this situation, or any direct citations from the online blog site Orthodoxy in Dialogue to ensure I didn't add anything false. I only mentioned Orthodoxy in Dialogue's allegations because a.) they are an extremely important part of this situation (i.e. this was not simply a financial scandal) as well as b.) they are directly mentioned in the court deposition filed.

Pinging @Firefangledfeathers to take a peek at this to ensure that the section is up to par. Hydronym89 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

IMPORTANT:

I also wanted to mention that this is not the first time that a section like this has been added to this article. See here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Al-Zehlaoui&diff=prev&oldid=1239854704 where a similar section was removed with accusations of slander. Hydronym89 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(apologies, I didn't know you couldn't edit wikipedia talk pages after submitting)

Further note that the section that I linked is arguably better than the section I added, and if it is decided to revert to that edit I would not be opposed. However, I'm not sure how to go about the process but perhaps we should also try to get some sort of edit protection on this page? I don't want this to become an edit war where people keep adding this section, and other people, trying to save Met. Joseph from "slander", keep trying to delete this section.

There's a LOT of hot blood around this, not minimally caused by the fact that a lot of the information around this revolves around, and I cannot stress this enough, EXTREMELY controversial, left leaning, and often tabloid-like blog Orthodoxy in Dialogue (which should never be used as a direct source, if just because it would violate WP:NOR )...but because of this, people are then quick to turn around and dismiss the entire situation as "slander" despite the fact that the archdioscese has taken these reports seriously and the filing of the lawsuit is publicly available material.

tl;dr: I'm not sure how but this article might need to be edit protected to avoid a future edit war. Hydronym89 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like good content. I'm not knowledgeable about this topic. I should have some feedback soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wherever possible, it's good to rely on secondary sources over primary ones. If there are places where you can cite and summarize the news articles instead of the court filing or official statement go for it. One example: you chose a quote from the statement "Improper actions as clergyman ..." whereas the news source quoted a separate bit: "improper attitude as a bishop ...". I'd go with the quote highlighted by the secondary source.

Smaller matters: there should be no space between the period at the end of a sentence and the citations. Most quoted material should have punctuation outside the quotation marks. See MOS:REFSPACE and MOS:REFPUNCT. I haven't looked into the old version yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Was gonna say, that was also a direct quote from the antiochian orthodox official website, i.e.:

- Improper actions as clergyman (retired Metropolitan) with respect to church property and monetary matters, and

- Initiating a legal proceeding against the Church in a civil court. Hydronym89 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)