Talk:Patheos

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Suggested changes

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)[reply]

Questions about Patheos itself

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)[reply]

Problems with tone and sourcing

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)[reply]

Reception section has misleading information

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)[reply]

I've gone ahead with revising the paragraph to reflect the satiricial nature of the Laughing Disbelief blog, but I agree with the proposed deletion. The paragraph seems to have rather little to do with the reception of the Patheos overall. It's a curious bit of Internet trivia about satire, misunderstanding, and the India Today, but the sources provided in the article do not much attest to this having meaning for the reception of Patheos as a website. P-Makoto (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of words

Religious cults world views vs word of living God Chinn100 (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]