This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article reads like
a press release or
a news article and may be largely based on
routine coverage. |
Patheos has been acquired by Beliefnet; here's a story that could be used as a source to incorporate that information: http://wildhunt.org/2016/09/beliefnet-acquires-patheos-pagan-bloggers-guardedly-optimistic.html
I will not include it myself because I am part of the editorial staff at the news agency in question.--~ T P W 20:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the noted problems with the tone of this Wikipedia article, I question the nature of the Patheos enterprise. This Patheos article about Barron Trump running away from home reads like a New Yorker Magazine "Shouts and Murmurs" satire. Is it for real?
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2018/11/barron-trump-runs-away-from-home/
If the "Laughing in Disbelief" blog is satire, it should be labeled as such.
HowardMorland ( talk) 13:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the satire section here [1], I've removed it as all of it seemed to be original research disproving the claims of a single satire blog hosted on the site. However, the person who wrote the above talk page section brings up a point about perhaps mentioning that some satire is hosted on the site. I considered moving the info on the Laughing in Disbelief blog to the prominent contributors section, but as it is I'm concerned that that section has something of a sourcing problem - it's for similar reasons I didn't add Stacey Dash to it. The content section has a similar problem, and to me reads a bit like a promotional summary. Does anyone with more experience with this sort of thing have thoughts on what should be done? Darthkayak ( talk) 08:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The last part of the reception section says: The website claims Iceland has made religion illegal and labelled it a mental disorder, placing warning signs on Bibles and banned Christian tourists from travelling to certain places within the country.[12] The author of the stories also puts his own name as the fictional Icelandic prime minister. Fact checkers debunked the article.[13]
When you actually read the article you can see that it's patently satire and in fact the entire blog that it's posted on, Laughing in Disbelief, is satirical.
[2]
I recommend changing that part of the section to reflect the fact that it's satire, or at the minimum to delete that part since it's misleading. I didn't want to change it immediately myself without consensus because just two edits ago somebody removed it and that edit was reverted. Ericfood ( talk | contribs) 23:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Religious cults world views vs word of living God Chinn100 ( talk) 01:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)