Talk:Jean-Marie Speich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Resume, style, Family Speich[edit]

There were too many sections which appeared like a resumé. For instance «Assignments in the Diplomatic Service of the Holy See ( Vatican )», «Special Missions in the Diplomatic Service of the Holy See», and diverse Honours. It’s not a biographical article now /o\ .
To my mind the family’s history is too long for a such biography. We mays split the article in two : one for the Speich’s family (Family Speich?) and one for Mgr Jean-Marie Speich.
I apologize my level in english (I’m coming from the french WP),
best regards, --O-Mann (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


It appears that many references are not believable…
«Cf. JMS, "Kocherschbari", HIVER 2015 - No. 72, Truchtersheim, 2015, ISSN - 0243-2498, pp. -----»
«Cf. JMS, "Kocherschbari", ETE 2014 - No. 69, Truchtersheim, 2014, ISSN - 0243-2498, pp. ---»
«Cf. JMS, "Kocherschbari", ETE 2015 - No. 71, Truchtersheim, 2015, ISSN - 0243-2498, pp. ---.»
Is the periodical «Kocherschbari» believable? And is the famous «JMS» Mgr Jean-Marie Speich? If it is the case we should consider this references as potential non-neutral (is Mgr Speich an historian?).
best regards, --O-Mann (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

These references were originally added in November 2013 and removed by an IP editor in December 2013.
Regardless of who the unidentified author "JMS" is, the initials should be included in the citation. I reincluded the author initials. My complaint about the references is the lack of any article titles cited from Kocherschbari. If Speich did have articles published in Kocherschbari, he should be credited in these citations as the source. I don't see anything in the article that looks different than many other local histories that cite local sources – looking at the WorldCat record Kocherschbari seems to be that kind of local source published by a local historical association. I assume the contribution was made in WP:GOODFAITH and the citations were somewhat corrected by just dumping untemplated sources from Kocherschbari into the bundled citations. It requires someone to verify what is included in Kocherschbari.
The first assertion that I checked failed verification; neither "Speich is scion of an old Alemannic family of free men, who are descendants of the Alemanni warrior class called armati by the Romans" nor anything about "Speich" is found in a Google Books search within either Le Bohec & Wolff 2004 or Speidel 2004.
Also, "Speich" is not found in a HathiTrust search of either Schott 1993 v1 or Schott 1993 v2. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The included references are included, in my opinion, uncritically – for example, there is citation for pages 3–800 in volumes 1–8 of a work published 1866–1871. The name Speich only appears sporadically. Anyone who can read German can read through the Google Books and HathiTrust pages that I linked to in the references. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I would encourage you to remove anything hinky immediately, per WP:BLP. I also question the need for any "Family History" section at all. It is highly unusual for any BLP on Wikipedia to contain such an exhaustive history of the family, which may be covering extremely distant relatives and has no intent to focus on direct ancestors. It is also highly unusual for an article on a Catholic prelate, and I would daresay, quite off-topic for someone who is notable for his career as a bishop. In order to remove the WP:COI influence that has been wielded over this page, I suggest we greatly reduce or even eliminate the "Family History" section, because the rest of the article seems perfectly ordinary and neutral at this point. Elizium23 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Elizium23: I agree with that. I removed § Family history with this edit . –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Objection to edits of User:Dl2000[edit]

For User:Dl2000

Thank you for your observations regarding the Bibliography of Archbishop Jean-Marie speech.

But I am reverting the article to my previous edit because:

1. The Episcopal genealogy of Archbishop Speich is a continuation of the episcopal genealogy of Pope Francis. Before you could have deleted this contribution, you could have inquired first from the contributor. This is the reason why we have talk pages in every usage page.

2. There was already a citation regarding the other diplomatic assignments of Mons. Speich,i.e., his official curriculum vitae. This contributor created the pertinent article and knows the subject very well, who supplied this contributor with the document cited. Before you could have deleted the section, you could have asked for supplementary reference materials to satisfy what you wish to contribute.

Thank you.

Sulbud (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A matter of style: On the question regarding separating sections from this article.[edit]

The edits of all those concerned about contributing toward a more informative data regarding the subject is very much appreciated. However, deletion of important data from the article does not seem fair when citations, insufficient in form as some may appear to certain editors, are already provided.

What to include, so long as these pertain to the subject, is a matter of style. Wikipedia does not indicate how long should a biographical article be. It does not prohibit to include the subject's family history which, in the humble opinion of this contributor, is also interesting.

It is true that some sections of this article could be developed into independent articles. That is another question, which other interested contributors could do, if they have sufficient reasons. But, in so far that these sections are related to the subject, I can see no reason why these should be omitted from this article.

-- (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Objection to the deletion of the coat of arms of Archbishop Jean-Marie Speich[edit]

Archbishop Jean-Marie Speich objects to the deletion of his official coat of arms. The Apostolic Nuncio does not wish any modification in his coat of arms, especially the addition of a band with his motto. Mons. Speich follows the centuries-old tradition of his family of not including personal motto in their heraldic symbols. With due respect to the creator of the current coat of arms posted in his Wikipedia biography, the Archbishop expresses displeasure with the rendition of such coat of arms. --Sulbud (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

This article seems to have largely been written by one editor, who by their own admission has a close relationship with the subject, I note the comments above. This seems to be a serious violation of WP:COI Paul  Bradbury 11:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite the bulk of reference materials cited, it is observable that certain contributors are aggressively trying to place undue tags in this article.

Some claim that knowing (a close relationship with) the subject personally, would be tanamount to serious violation against being objective in writing about the person in question. This will be true if a contributor includes information that are unsubstantiated with suitable reference materials. However, it seems more biased if one deletes contirbutions of wikipedians without substantial support to contrary claims, at least by pointing out objective reference materials; or worse, to places tags for some kind of paranoid reason. It is an insult to sensibilities of contributors who include information substantiated by citations, when such presumptive tags and comments are stamped on wikipedia articles.

On the otherhand, contributors who know the subject personally are more knoweledgeable about this subject.

For this reason, I remove the tag placed by  Bradbury on 17 August 2015.--Northern Lights 2000 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Marie Speich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)