Talk:Toc H

It would be good to see a little up to date information about Toc H activities here. (Cheddington2001 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yep. And an up-to-date external link for Toc H UK! 86.132.136.52 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Toc H is closing down? If so, someone needs to update this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.201.178.74 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a trustee and a member of Toc H. I am also very interested and quite knowledgeable about its history. However I am something of a Wikipedia newbie as far as contributing goes. I have written a completely new article about the current status of Toc H and also the history of the Movement. This has been approved by the board of trustees. What I want to know is more about Wikipedia etiquette. Can I simply replace the current entry with my new article or is that not the done thing.

Moonbrand (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a chance and replaced the entire article with one that has been prepared by the current trustees of Toc H. I apologise if this breaches protocol. However, I think you will find the new article is accurate, up to date and sufficiently referenced to provide evidence of the information contained herein. I appreciate any comments more experienced wikipedia users may have. Moonbrand (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your lack of response here is undoubtedly a function of lack of watchers. Having just floated in, I'll comment, though. A look at the history shows this has been under way for nearly seven years with only a handful of contributors, few if any writing from NPOV. Hotspur23, for example, made a number of extensive changes (like this one), describing them in his edit summaries as M for minor. You ask whether [replacing the entire article with a version officially prepared by first-party interests] breaches protocol. The answer is quite simple: "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". (See here. If you need reminding about what Wikipedia is, a succinct statement can be found at WP:ENC. You've been commendably honest about the unacceptable breaches, but should now accept that you have actually increased justification of the "advert" and "primary sources" templates, which should therefore not have been lifted. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Let me know how I can help Moonbrand (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Room chapel artefacts

The currently available sources mention that artefacts were moved from Belgium to Clayton's church in London, All Hallows by the Tower—and moved back in 1929. I can't find a reasonable explanation for this. Maybe Clayton had become too controversial for the C of E, or a new vicar needed the space for his own purposes. ~~Also, the sources don't go into the ownership (and any changes therein)~~ of "the large home of the Coevoet family" at Poperinge which became Talbot House in 1915.

A page named The story of Talbot House reports (without sourcing)

When the Great War was over Monsieur Camerlynck, the hop merchant, returned. However, he was overwhelmed by the number of ex-soldiers who came knocking at the door to see the old house again, and put it up for sale. In 1929 Lord Wakefield of Hythe bought the house for £9,200 and donated it to the Talbot House Association. This is the reason for the official twinning of Poperinge with Hythe in Kent, England.

~~Presumably the present owners have only a commercial interest in its past association with Toc H.~~ This accords with the unsourced statement in the current article

In 1930, thanks to the generosity of Lord Wakefield, one of Tubby’s dreams came true when the original Talbot House in Poperinge was bought for the movement. It remains in the hands of the Talbot House Association – an Anglo-Belgian organisation.

Who and what is that association precisely? Maybe it would be a help if an editor "on the spot" could go there and try to document that situation more fully. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about disputing the edits? I notice that you have claimed Tubby Clayton opened a Christian Youth Centre in London in 1920. This is simply not true? I am somewhat annoyed that after spending some time - in collaboration with others - preparing an accurate, albeit brief, history of Toc H, someone else can come along and post spurious entries into this.

I can understand why you might want to wikify this article but to introduce errors when people who clearly know a lot more about the subject than you do have gone to considerable effort to get a factually accurate piece is beyond me.

With regard to why the artefacts were moved to London (And it wasn't to Clayton's church in the first instance as Tubby didn't become incumbent at All Hallows until 1922 - the chapel was originally reconstructed in several of the hostels that Toc H established), it was because Msr Coevoet moved back into his home! The Talbot House Association is just that, an association that runs Talbot House. Listing the structure of that organisation seems like too much detail but I can do that if necessary but one of the members of that Association - himself a former director of Toc H - contributed to my original entry.

As you can tell I am somewhat cross with the crass inaccuracies introduced into this piece particularly that nonsense about a Youth Centre. You cite your source as Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Well I suspect this 'fact' comes from the fable section.

Moonbrand (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't doubt what you are conveying, and the ideal place for the original research is the comprehensive book you are working on. In the mean time (if we wish to have a Wikipedia monograph), we are quite properly constrained by the policies of Wikipedia which require reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Clearly, this is not instantly feasible but an exercise in gradual improvement (over years if necessary). It is par for the course that at any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. Like you, I've had my moments of impatience with Wikipedia but have come to respect the principles, which prevent obscure colleges from including their histories and staff directories and prevent me from including my own family history from the 17th century, etc., etc. I apologise profoundly if my goodwill and efforts to find sources have resulted in the inclusion of objectionable "fables". However, you and anyone else have the option and right to discard such content and replace it with better-sourced verifiable content, as per the editing process. None of your previous contributions have been lost—they can be resurrected at any time from a relevant page from the history, e.g., as at [July 27, 2010]. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a saying in england "As dim as a Toc H lamp" meaning 'not very intelligent', which was widespread before WW2 but had pretty much fallen into disuse by the late end of the 20th Century. As I understand it, explained to me as a child by my father (im 63), the expression arose because Toc H building used to have an electric lamp out side, illuminating the entrance door. To save money, it was always the smallest wattage available, usually 40W, which are not very bright, hence "Dim as a Toc H lamp" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.149.119 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons support dwindled

Could someone who understands Wikipedia add something on how and why support dwindled?

It is a complex web of Tubby Clayton and the charity's association with Jimmy Savile, Prince Andrew, Colin Gregg, and various others.

https://www.discogs.com/Tubby-Tuby-Talking-Informal-Conversations-With-The-Rev-Dr-P-B-Clayton-Founder-Padre-Of-Toc-H/release/2831554

Tubby Talking: Informal Conversations With The Rev. Dr. P. B. Clayton, Founder Padre Of Toc H (Toc H ‎– TH 01) Vinyl, LP.

http://calmview.bham.ac.uk/GetDocument.ashx?db=Catalog&fname=Toc+H.pdf

Tubby Clayton was of course close to Jimmy Savile, the TOC-H archives have various items.

https://goodnessandharmony.wordpress.com/tag/toc-h/

1970 – Colin Gregg was involved in the TOC H charity in the 70’s – when Jimmy Savile was also involved.

2A00:23C5:B382:B301:9072:419A:3933:9C09 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]