Talk:Two by Twos

message: I've removed these edits which were summarized with...
;I removed the erroneous statement that "members are told to deny any church name" and gave one explanation for why any name(s) exist at all. Also, removed the word "only" in "salvation is only available" because that is flatly not the case. God saves whomever He saves. It is true where the gospel has been preached, those who reject it may miss out. But what most ministers would say is that such matters are in God's hand. It is possible to accept every word preached and nevertheless "lose out."
Please note that article lead sections are used to summarize the referenced material in an article's body. Personal experience and research is not suitable for inclusion in articles, and instead the material in articles are to be referenced to published source materials. If you wish to add material with alternative viewpoints, please do so within the body of the article (not simply alter the lead section) with reliable references to back up your statements.  • Astynax talk 21:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you removed edits /info that was correct 134.215.4.36 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits removed 24 Feb 2019 

message: There's not one single citation in the lead and this is highly problematic. This article needs massive improvements to the lead. AlanStalk 05:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @AlanS. According to WP:LEADCITE, citations are not absolutely required in the lead, assuming that all the information in the lead is presented with citations in the body of the article. However, if there are controversial statements in the lead, then citations should be duplicated there. Is there anything in particular in the lead for which citations are not provided in the body, or anything that you think is controversial? Indyguy (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Indyguy "These organization names are used only for registration purposes and are not used by members." I'd think that is a strong enough of a statement that it should have an inline cite. Organisations handling finances need to have some sort of registration in a lot of jurisdictions, whether unincorporated or incorporated. If there is some sort of strong claim otherwise that should be backed up. AlanStalk 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One could purport just about any statement out to be "controversial" with this group, as (based upon my reading) many members deny it is an "organization" at all. That the official names were taken by the group's clergy and/or upper echelons of its membership, rather being imposed by outsiders, is incontrovertible (they've signed the documents), and that the common names are used, even if by outsiders, is widely supported by reliable sources. I personally fail to understand how this would confuse readers, nor how repeating citations in the lead would be an improvement.  • Astynax talk 17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly an organisation, regardless its views. It has rigid, long-standing in-group and out-group rules, a defining characteristic of organisation. It considers all other Christians to not be Christians unless they are specifically baptised by its ministers and attend its services to the exclusion of others. It has specific social norms that its members strictly adhere to. AlanStalk 06:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in lead 

message: Hi there is an article written on the Daily Dot about this exact topic of horrible abuse in this church. Would that be enough to dig deeper into this issue? 
https://www.dailydot.com/news/underground-church-two-by-twos/#llqqcu69euohmb6dle6 2600:6C5E:87F:FA4F:6DC7:8D31:B008:6E67 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Daily Dot has in the past been considered a reliable source for "non-contentious claims of fact". Such sources must be carefully used, however, e.g., it is not stand-alone backing for claims of abuse (although it can be used as backup if such claims have either been cited in higher quality sources and/or tried in a court leading to a conviction covered by the claim), and you cannot cite portions of the article which use Wikipedia itself as a source. A quick scan of that article seems to indicate that there are links to court cases that might yield records that provide additional backing for some statements. I'd suggest any such material be placed toward the end of the Into the 21st century section. Wikipedia is not a current events notice board, place to post info about current allegations/investigations, or place to advance original syntheses, so exercise discretion. When in doubt, wait for high quality reliable sources to appear, however frustratingly slow that may seem.  • Astynax talk 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSA in the 2x2 church Article