Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Eugène Ionesco State: Closed Requested By: Newport Other Parties: Newport , User:20.138.246.89, R613vlu and User:Daizus Mediated By: mcr616 Speak! 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Comments: Closed

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 2 What encyclopaedias say 3 New evidence

[edit] Mediation Case: 2007-02-28 Eugène Ionesco

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Newport 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Eugène Ionesco and its talk page

Who's involved?

Myself and anon user 20.138.246.89 against User:Daizus

What's going on?

We have a good secondary source (an article in a reputable encyclopaedia, signed by the expert authors) that says that Ionesco's mother was Jewish. Daizus refuses to allow due weight to be given to this source. He prefers a primary source. His argument is that the primary source is inherently preferable (contrary to WP:A, which is policy) and that the primary source is still alive, hence under WP:BLP we are not allowed to disagree with her. The latter argument is clearly fallacious; it would mean that every living person must be treated as a reliable source, and if we apply WP:BLP to his source it applies equally to the encyclopaedia authors. Daizus refuses to allow an indication of a dispute in the article by insertion of a {{dispute}} tag.

What would you like to change about that?

We would like everyone to abide by WP policies and guidelines, which means giving a good secondary source precedence over a primary one.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Happy to have you e-mail me via Wikipedia; I am in contact with the anon.

[edit] Mediator response

If there are no objections within the next few days I will close this case. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 13:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? The argument is still going on. Note that someone removed the notice from the talk page; I have restored it.--Newport 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a note, HIZKIAH was blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet, so a new mediator is needed to look at this case. 66.30.230.86 02:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Daizus' comments

I hope I am not offending the initiators of this action, but I do not understand what this action aims at. I will give you my version of this story and hopefully further comments will clarify this issue for good.

There were two distinct recent attempts to rewrite a footnote in Eugène Ionesco article, but they are essentially the same issue, as proven by the current case where both authors are on the same side. The core issue is how to present various sources presenting or arguing for a possible Jewish origin of Eugène Ionesco, the person the article is about.

1) Issues with user User:Newport. He attempted to add in the footnote a new reference on Encyclopaedia Judaica (from now on EJ). I initially fully rejected (reverted) his addition based on the following grounds:

a) It involved WP:OR. It quoted EJ and concluded from a rather vague statement: "he wrote [...] expressing a new awareness of his Jewish origin" was interpreted as "(he) testifies to his Jewish origins"

b) It was against WP:NPOV. The view expressed by Eugène Ionesco's daughter, Marie France-Ionesco, was caught between two views (from "Who is Who in Jewish History" and from EJ) supporting the same thing.

c) It was against WP:BLP. Ionesco's daughter argues for her own origins, her father's but also her own identity. I do not believe simple claims can be used to minimize her point of view. Also, scholars such as genealogists or at least literary critics who dedicated some study in finding Ionesco's family origins would be preferable to claims (even if made in an encyclopedia).

d) Though not among my objections (I only challenged Newport to bring Ionesco's own testimony, as his edit claimed), the user User:DrMajestico said he couldn't find such testimony from Ionesco in the book Present Passe, Passe Present, the book where supposedly this testimony is written, therefore would be an issue of WP:V, too.

Agree, you should fully rejected (reverted) his addition. HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With all these, I conceded to include EJ as a source, in the same manner "Who is Who in Jewish History" was already present in this article.

2) Issues with user User:20.138.246.89. He attempted to stress in the same footnote the reliability of certain sources and also quoted Wiki policies. After few attempts which I reverted while we were arguing on the talk page too, he decided to tag the article with "totallydisputed" template tag. Arguments I brought:

a) To quote Wikipedia's policies in an article is irrelevant for the content of the article.

Very well said. Correct. I agree entirely. 13:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

b) To stress some sources are reliable while his daughter's testimony is not falls under the incidence of the same WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (see also the discussion above 1a-d). But here a new discussion developed. The user 20.138.246.89 claimed EJ is a secondary source. I replied that with few exceptions (some Britannica articles, for instance) encyclopedias stand for tertiary sources, and evidence (a scholarly assessment, peer review, or at least a presentation of the disputed content) is required to claim EJ is a secondary source. And though I haven't yet replied to it, a new claim was made on the page and even here, that his daughter's account is a primary source. No, it is not. His daughter's account (which is given in the book, Portrait de l'écrivain dans le siècle: Eugène Ionesco) is a secondary source to her own genealogy. Primary sources would be birth certificates, other documents, personal letters etc. from which one could see whether a certain ancestor of Ionesco was Jewish or not. I do not agree to have Ionesco's daughter's account minimized unjustly faced with some encyclopedic content.

If the users Newport and 20.138.246.89 want to further develop the POV given by EJ, they certainly can do so and I won't oppose. But they should do it in a way which doesn't alter the importance of the other POVs expressed in the same context, in our case the one given by Ionesco's daughter. Also, please try to represent as accurately possible the used sources. Daizus 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. I agree. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 13:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Daizus 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Daizus The issue is whether or not we follow Wikipedia policy. The exact wording from the Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition 2007, reproduced verbatim from the first edition, is "IONESCO, EUGÈNE (1912–1994), Romanian-born French playwright. Ionesco's mother, Thérèse Icard, was a French Jewess who, while teaching in Romania, married a non-Jewish lawyer, Eugène Ionesco." That could not be clearer. Under Wikipedia policy, a citation from a signed article in a reputable encyclopaedia is a secondary source and therefore taks precedence over a primary source. I am not suggesting, of course, that we ignore her statement, only that e follow Wikipedia policy and put the other statement first. If Daius argues that Ionesco's daughter is better informed than the encyclopaedia because she has first-hand knowledge, she is a primary source. If he is not asserting that she is better informed, why should her opinion have more weight? Note that this is the second edition of the encyclpaedia; had anyone demonstrated the inaccuracy of the statment, it would of course have been corrected. Given that there is a dispute on the POV of the article, is it OK to place a tag to that effect until the dispute is resolved?--20.138.246.89 12:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, if you believe quoting from EJ would make a point, please do so. But I don't understand why should we favor one POV (EJ) over the other (Ionesco's daughter). Though I expected my point would have been clear, let me try to slightly rephrase it, because I'd hope and like you also to understand the principles for which I acted:

• quoting from an encyclopedia does not always mean quoting from a secondary source. Much of the encyclopedic content is actually a tertiary source, i.e. a compilation of existing sources with little added value (interpretation, analysis, etc.)
• his daughter's testimony is a secondary source (check also some reviews: [1] [2] [3]). More than that, as I already argued we should give her a bit of credit on her own genealogy. And let's note EJ doesn't discuss in depth Ionesco's genealogy as his daughter does, so for the time being, beside being a secondary source is also our only detailed view on Ionesco's genealogy.
• It is yet to prove that an alleged expert indeed has the expertise required. For instance, in the the talk page of the article you argued one of the authors signing for EJ's article is Claude Gandelman. I replied to you then Gandelman is a professor of French literature and comparative literature at the universities of Tel Aviv and Haifa and that I found some references with him writing on semiotics or aesthetics. This doesn't give him automatically expertise on Ionesco's genealogy. Moreover, Marie-France Ionesco is herself, according to one of the aforementioned reviews, "professeur de lettres". So I don't understand on what grounds EJ is a reliable source on Ionesco's genealogy whereas his daughter is not, on what grounds EJ's authors are experts in this question whereas Marie-France Ionesco is not. Why do we have to minimize her account on her own family?

Also, it seems some other people (experts or not) writing in encyclopedias, dictionaries and books on Ionesco do not always agree with the experts from EJ:

Concise Britannica: "Romanian-born French playwright"

Enc. Britannica online: "Romanian-born French dramatist"

A dictionary of the Avant-Gardes: "Born in Rumania of a French mother"

The Theater of Eugene Ionesco: "French by his mother, Thérèse Icard"

An interesting view into this problem is given in La Roumanie littéraire at pages 203-204. Several enlightening quotes: "la tradition bibliographique du dramaturge indique qu'il est né d'une mère française et d'un père roumain" (the bibliographical tradition of the playwright points out he was born to a French mother and a Romanian father) but Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine concludes "les origines juives de Ionesco (sont) bel et bien avérées mais lointaines" (the Jewish origins of Ionesco are well proven but remote". The arguments of A. Laignel-Lavastine are similar but not identical to those of Ionesco's daughter (these controversial Jewish origins are from his mother's father, Jean Ipcar) and reaching a slightly different conclusion. However, regarding our particular disagreement, from these sources his mother is not presented being Jewish but either French or French with remote Jewish origins. This is what his daughter says, this is what some other secondary and tertiary sources say. That's why I believe there's absolutely no reason to say EJ is reliable while other sources are not, all what we should do is to present those POVs without unjustified emphases and let the reader decide. Daizus 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. Thanks--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Newport Indeed, encyclopaedias are not always secondary sources. However, the policy clearly states that signed articles in reputable encyclopaedias are secondary sources. No policy requires a source to discuss anything in detail - EJ says flatly and with no ambiguity that his mother was Jewish. it is original research to describe a contributor to a reputable encyclopaedia as an "alleged" expert; it is also a violation of WP:BLP. The Wikipedia policy itself says that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary ones. How is Ionesco's daughter not a primary source? None of the four sources alleged to disagree with the EJ does so; is it suggested that you cannot be both French and Jewish? The Encyclopaedia Britannica does not describe many undoubted Jews as Jewish. Of course we should report what his daughter says; it is just a matter of phrasing, and I hope that the mediator can suggest some.--Newport 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Accesing Wikipedia materials on secondary sources and tertiary sources, I don't see it anywhere implied that a material which is signed is automatically a secondary source. Moreover, in the page on tertiary sources we have a reasoning for why an encyclopedia can be a secondary source, take for instance the example of Britannica: "the long articles of the Encyclopædia Britannica certainly constitute the kind of analytical material characteristic of secondary sources, while they also attempt to provide the kind of comprehensive coverage associated with tertiary sources.", while encyclopedias can generally be a mixture of a secondary and a tertiary source when "presenting on the one hand commentary and analysis, while on the other attempting to provide a synoptic overview of the material available on the topic." (emphases are mine). So, you see, it's not just about reputation or details, but about insight, about interpretation and analysis. If EJ doesn't provide any argument (interpretation, analysis, etc.) on Ionesco's genealogy but the claim which was already quoted ("Ionesco's mother, Thérèse Icard, was a French Jewess"), with respect to this topic it doesn't look a secondary source to me. I will concede it is one, when it is proven so.

I do not understand why do you insist Marie-France Ionesco's book is a primary source (please read the reviews!).

As for the experts, they must be proven as such. This is no WP:BLP issue, one is expert when his credentials and the peer review recommend him as one. I already issued the case of Claude Gandelman, but I received no response to persuade me he's indeed an expert on Ionesco's family history, or that his account on it (or of any other author of EJ) is more reliable than Ionesco's daughter's.

And last but not at least, the sources I presented disagree with EJ, because if those sources do not say Ionesco's mother was Jewish it means that from the POV they represent she was not, as well as from their POV Ionesco's mother was not Chinese or Namibian. They do not say the things which they didn't deny, they only say the things they affirmed. Daizus 12:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What encyclopaedias say

Just a quick comment. If an encyclopaedia doesn't say something, that doesn't mean that from their POV they reject it. It only means that they didn't think it was worth saying. Compare an abridged encyclopaedia with a larger one from the same publisher - does the editor of the abridgement deny everything he excludes? To say that because they fail to mention that someone's mother was Jewish, they are asserting that she wasn't is absurd.--R613vlu 13:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of abridgement. They actually say his mother was French. In what world "French" is an abridgement of "Jewish"? If they would have missed his mother's ethnicity or wouldn't make any mention of his mother, yes, that would be an abridgement.

As for what encyclopedias say, my point is simple. If they missed something, then prove they did, do not assume they did. If you believe they have missed to say his mother was Jewish, how do you know they haven't actually missed to say his mother was Chinese? Daizus 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The article cited in EJ uses as its source the book Present Passe, Passe Present, an autobiography of sorts witten by Ionesco. However, that book does not state what the EJ claims it states. Obviously, the article in EJ is in error, and should be discounted, I would think. DrMajestico

How do you have a discussion with someone who believes that if you are French you can't be Jewish? Encyclopaedia Britannica describes Hermann Bondi as a British scientist and does not mention that he was Jewish. Does that prove that he was not Jewish? Many articles about Lewis Carroll, even some biographies, do not mention that his great-grandfather was a bishop. Does that prove that he wasn't? As for DrMajestico's point, EJ does not say that it is relying only on the cited book; it is original research to assume that. Can the mediator please say something and propose a sensible compromise?--Newport 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying his mother couldn't be Jewish, only that the sources I invoked say she was not. They give an ethnicity and that is not Jewish. The parallel with Lewis Carroll's father is untennable, unless those biographies say he was a mechanical engineer or an expressionist painter. But as I assume they do not. Daizus 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting analogy in the points made here. Newport claims EB is factually inaccurate because it routinely misses to acknowledge when people are Jewish. DrMajestico claims EJ is factually inaccurate as he had read the material invoked as evidence and it doesn't support EJ's claims. Isn't it the best thing then to choose other sources to fundament a POV? Though, as I have already mentioned, I have no problem if you decide to quote EJ's on Ionesco's parents. Just do not insinuate in any way that this is a better source than others. Daizus 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet I do not understand why this focus on EB? I've quoted a book dedicating an entire page on this issue and making a clear assessment: "la tradition bibliographique du dramaturge indique qu'il est né d'une mère française et d'un père roumain" (see above for translation if you need it). So it's not EB or whatever source, it's traditionally acknowledged his mother was French. Moreover, the book goes on and illustrates a scholarly point similar with the one of his daughter. Ionesco's Jewish origin is remote, it comes from some grand-grandparents from his mother side. Daizus 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the quote from EJ [User:Newport|Newport]] cited, originally: "he [Ionesco] wrote about his family history for the first time in the second volume of his memoirs, Present Passe, Passe Present (1968), a sequel to Le Journal en Miettes (1957, Fragments of a Journal, 1968), expressing a new awareness of his Jewish origin." Encyclopaedia Judaica, art. "Ionesco, Eugene". As anyone who reads Present Passe, Passe Present will note, that attribution is erroneous. Ionesco does not write about his supposedly Jewish origins in that book, nor am I aware of any other time he writes on the matter (and I have, in fact, read every book and play he has written). Is it unreasonable to assume that the article in EJ is unreliable, when its citation is so off the mark? I believe the error comes from the fact that Ionesco was such a supporter of Israel and of the Jewish people. But that makes it all the more important not to erroneously define him as Jewish. It was not his own self interest he was protecting, during World War II and beyond, it was the rights of others he was fighting for. He does speak, in his books, of his father's extreme anti-semitism--no proof that his mother wasn't Jewish, but certainly an indication that his father may not have chosen to marry a Jew. And Ionesco never writes of having any fear of being taken off himself, during the Nazi occupation of Paris--clearly a concern, if he were half-Jewish. But beyond that, besides a clearly faulty article in the EJ, there seems to be no reason to suppose he was Jewish, in any significant way.DrMajestico

[edit] New evidence

But see the discussion at jinfo.org under Jewish playwrights, which pretty much settles the issue on the basis of Ionesco's own statements in an article he wrote for Figaro Litteraire in 1968 (August 5).

Note that no one is mediating this case anymore. The entire thing was opened on the false pretense that the daughter's book was a primary source. That was cleared up, time to close. Usedup 04:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So if one side's main argument is that we have to accept that Ionesco's daughter is a better source than a standard encyclopaedia, would they agree that Ionesco himself is an even better source? [4]--R613vlu 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but far from definitive, in my opinion. The excerpt seems to be from a passage that talks about an anoymous lawyer. Though some details of the lawyer definitely match with Ionesco's father, others do not line up as easily. In other passages in the book, he speaks directly about his father. Why the anonymous "lawyer" in this passage? It seems to me it may be a conflation of more than one figure, his father and possibly his uncle included. My theory would be that he unconciously referred to his father at one point in when originally writing the passage (then corrected the mistake) because his father was one of the figures he was hasing this character on. As for making the lawyer's wife Jewish, that certainly would not be inconsistent, even if one were to assume that the facts are exactly as Marie-France stated them--that Ionesco's mother grandmother may or may not have been Jewish. Even if one were to assume that the "lawyer" was Ionesco's father and none other, it is not unreasonable to assume that in that time, the 1940's, when the story of the lawyer is set, even the whiff of Judaism could be referred to as "sullied blood." I think, also, the fact that this passge was changed once the book was printed is a significant fact--perhaps Ionesco himself felt it was open to confusion. Others, no doubt, would argue he was trying to hide his Judaism--but why? It does not seems consistent with the rest of his writing. DrMajestico

As someone who has read the book from where those words were taken, the statements were obviously part of a conceit, an extended metaphor. Ionesco makes four of five of them in his book, including one where he says "then I become the Jew." They are not meant to be taken literally. On Pg 59 he writes "I am obviously on Israel's side. Perhaps becausae I have read the Bible. Perhaps because my education was Christian and because after all Christianity is only as Jewish sect. PErhaps because, if I was able to bear the death of five or ten of fifteen million persons, I can no longer bear the death of twenty million." Pretty direct Ionesco wasn't a Jew himself. Put this issue to rest. Persida Popa, Moldova

Actually Ionesco testified in many of his letters about his possible Jewish origin and as DrMajestico points out due to his uncertainty he "felt" Jew in many other non-ethnical ways (Matei Călinescu makes fine points about that; I'll detail more a bit later, when I'll have more time, in the Ionesco's talk page). So this new evidence in its decontextualized presentation is rather inconclusive (first question one should ask himself after reading that link is why didn't he reissue the claim when he wrote the book?).

It was never claimed his daughter is a better source. Only that she's a secondary source, a reliable one (as the reviews prove), she has (see my parallel above with Gandelman) credentials comparable to the experts signing articles in encyclopedias, but most important she gives the only (together here with Lavastine's argument, see above) detailed account on Ionesco's genealogy. All the opposing arguments only assert Ionesco's mother was Jewish. While Ionesco's genealogy is largely ignored, I don't see why should we pay too much attention on these other sources. From my side you can mention them in that footnote (or if too much information gathers there, develop a new section), my request is only to make sure you won't eclipse Marie-France Ionesco's account or attempt to discredit her (as it was previously done by emphasizing the reliability of Jewish Encyclopedia and suggesting her account wouldn't be that reliable). Daizus 10:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm the user who initially closed this case (see the article's talk page). The opinion I expressed when I did so (and I closed it because it was inactive) was that since both positions can be properly sourced, both must be included in the article. While it's obvious that Ionesco wasn't practicing Judaism, that doesn't mean he wasn't, ethnically speaking, of Jewish origin. Evidence that he was and evidence that he wasn't all needs to be dealt with in a neutral manner- I'd give each position equal weight since, from what I'm seeing on this talk page, it's pretty well up in the air.

Incidentally, I would treat Ionesco's daughter as a primary source for the purpose of this debate, because her comments reflect not only Ionesco's ethnicity but also her own ethnicity.

Just my two cents. --Moralis (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I find far stretched to call someone a Jew because a grandmother (in case of his mother) or a grand-grandmother (in case of Ionesco) could (it's not at all that certain, not to say the genealogy excerpts we have do not go beyond this level) be a Jew. If more detailed sources will be found, then by all means, add them. But so far, the Jewish origin is remote. There's no evidence summoned to show him otherwise. If, by an analogy, Ionesco's grand-grandmother would have been Polish or German or anything else, that wouldn't have made him be of that ethnicity.

As for his daughter, her book simply cannot be a primary source. It deals with facts, scholarship, it was addressed by scholarship as a secondary source. Yes, it has impact on her ethnicity, but my main concerns when I issued WP:BLP was the unfair questioning of her credibility. Daizus 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is distinctly circular logic and original research. It is his daughter who is saying that her grandmother was not Jewish. If we accept his own view, for which we have a good source, that his mother was Jewish, then obviously she was Jewish. Thus it all comes down to whether we believe him or his daughter.--Newport 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Newport, this discussion is going ad nauseam and this is gonna be my last reply in the perspective you're ignoring all the arguments made above or in Ionesco's talk page. Consider my arguments and we can talk. Ignore them and we'll talk only through a mediator as I do not find anything else to be said directly to you. Daizus 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• his daughter has credentials just as the experts from Jewish Encyclopedia ("professeur de lettres"). Also her account is not just a review of her own memory and family traditions (it has some of those, too, no doubt) but also a rational argumentation and interpretation based on other sources, which qualifies it a secondary source (I'd add quite a reliable secondary source due to favorable reviews). Moreover, M-F Ionesco's view is consistent with views of other scholars, agreeing the Jewish element in Ionesco's family is remote, and perhaps not even that certain.
• Ionesco's view is not that his mother was a Jew, but only that she might have a possible Jewish origin, an origin he researched without reaching definitive conclusions. This is the complete perspective some scholars provided after an overview of Ionesco's testimonies in his work, his letters, others' journals on him. As such there's no conflict, on the contrary, Marie-France Ionesco's gives a new enlightening perspective on Ionesco's identity dramas. Daizus 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, after reviewing everything here, I see we have two conflicting sources. I think it would probably just be better to say something along the lines of "Eugene Ionesco was thought to have Jewish ancestry", or maybe something a little less wordy. This way we can represent both points of view instead of having it degenerate into a he said, she said battle. mcr616 _Speak! 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge of Eugene Ionesco, there are no conflicting sources. Eugene Ionesco never stated his mother was Jewish. No such statement is in his memoirs or anywhere else. He only suspected he might have some Jewish ancestry, which he well may have had, and his daughter already pointed out where that Jewish ancestry came from. What else is there to say for goodness sake? Persida Popa

They use this excerpt as proof: "L'avocat, toujours dans le sens de l'histoire, devient partisan des Gardes de fer et dit à son fils dont la mère était juive: <<J'ai commis une grande faute dans ma vie: j'ai sali mon sang, je doit racheter le péché du sang>>," which is allegedly (haven't read it myself, nor found any other reference to it) from an article Ionesco wrote for Figaro Littéraire on Aug. 5, 1968. The interesting part is that the article was presented as an excerpt from the forthcoming Présent Passé, Passé Présent (which I believe explains the confusion from Jewish Encyclopedia), only that in that book, the "mère était juive" part was dropped. Daizus 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not there are two conflicting sources, I still think that it would be OK to say "Eugene Ionesco is believed by some to have Jewish ancestry", or something like that. mcr616 _Speak! 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts, as I happened to happen across the case.

• A person's religious affiliation is determined largely through self-identification. On the other hand, a person's ethnic origin is not. Since "Jewish" can be both a religious and an ethnic description, it should be made clear in which sense (or both) it is being used, since one could be ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish.
• When we find our sources in conflict (especially when both sides have sources of about the same quantity and reliability, which appears to be the case here), it's neither productive nor our place to "take a side" in the conflict. We simply state who said what (with careful referencing and attribution so that readers can check sources for themselves, not just "Some say..." "Others claim that...").
• Between the daughter's credentials and the outside reviews of the book, her autobiography should be considered a secondary source, as most published books are secondary. That doesn't mean they're all reliable, but in this case it appears it is. (An example of a primary source would be, say, the daughter's own blog, or if a verbatim copy of her diary were to be published at some point.)
• It sounds like at least some of his self-identification as Jewish is metaphorical or allegorical rather than literal. It's important not to take that too seriously.
• If the term is being used in a purely ethnic sense, and only his mother was ethnically Jewish (or part so), it may be best to clarify that with standard ethnic terminology (if, of course, such a ratio can be defined)-"half Jewish", "a quarter Jewish", or even "part Jewish" if no specific claim to the amount of Jewish ancestry is made. This may also help to clarify that the term is used in an ethnic sense.

Just my thoughts, feel free to use if they're of any help and ignore if they're not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, apparently the daughter isn't sure that she is or isn't Jewish, but seems not to care either way. mcr616 _Speak! 20:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're nearly there. I'll just tighten up the proposed wording.--Newport 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I reverted. Ionesco said also he's not certain about the Jewish origin of his mother, so either mention both or mention none. Daizus 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention both of them. They're both valid viewpoints. mcr616 _Speak! 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I´ll have a go at the wording, but if Daizus refuses to accept that, maybe it would be helpful for mcr616 to make a suggestion. It is original research to speculate on why the two cited encyclopaedias say what they doñ maybe they have other sources.--R613vlu 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine.

However from Newport's edit:

he wrote about his family history for the first time in the second volume of his memoirs, Present Passe, Passe Present (1968), a sequel to Le Journal en Miettes (1957, Fragments of a Journal, 1968), expressing a new awareness of his Jewish origin Encyclopaedia Judaica, art. "Ionesco, Eugene

Therefore, unless EJ makes other claims on Ionesco's ethnic background, I believe it is clear this encyclopedia uses that book for a source (though it may be factually incorrect, but this is a subsequent issue and OR as long we have no reliable secondary source to assess this situatioon). I can't say about Who's Who, though. Daizus 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The part where it says "expressing a new awareness of his Jewish origin" sounds a bit POV. Maybe you could change the wording around? mcr616 _Speak! 16:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not use that wording. I was just reminding R613vlu the piece of content from Encyclopaedia Judaica which triggered this entire debate. And it points to the book in question, that's all. Daizus 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. mcr616 _Speak! 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Include both viewpoints, and both sources. mcr616 _Speak! 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They are both included for a while now. I noticed today a parallel thread on two talk pages concerning me and this debate. I'm answering here, though.

Since DrMajestico's edit there was a reference to that site, so I do not understand Newport's complaint nor the moderators's assessment that I refuse to include a reference. I hope the moderator can provide evidence for his assessment otherwise I expect apologies. I hope it's not necessary to call for a new unbiased moderator, willing to pay attention to the content we're debating and the real actions of the editors. Daizus 17:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do I have to apologize to you? I haven't attacked you or anything else. I go on what I'm told. Just because something may happen that you don't like doesn't mean that people are attacking you. I took this case because I wanted to help out, not because I'm biased one way or another. Personally, I'd never even heard of Mr. Ionesco before taking the case. I'd gladly apologize if you pointed out how I was being biased. mcr616 _Speak! 22:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Following this comment of Newport you gave this reply. You assert that I "refuse to include a reference" and also you qualify this situation as "silly". On what grounds do you assert that? If you have zero evidence for it, yes, I find it insulting. I also find insulting your continuing allegation that I would be reacting against some things "I don't like". Well, you don't know what I like or what I like not, so I suggest you to stop guessing my motives. I reacted because your assessment is not fair, because it misrepresents my position in this debate, because it is inaccurate. And for what I'm concerned, if you can't get your facts straight on what the editors did or what their positions are in this debate, how can I trust you to mediate it? Inventing cannot make an arbitration anything else than biased. Daizus 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if I offended you. That wasn't my intention. I'm not inventing anything. I'm going by what people tell me and what I've seen so far. You're blowing this out of proportion. I'm basing my decision on the facts that I have been given/found. Honestly, this case should have ended after the first mediator. It's not that big of a deal. If the reference is trustworthy, include it. Include both viewpoints. I apologize for offending you. Let's just all keep it civil from now on, though.mcr616 _Speak! 00:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The way I see it, if an accusation is thrown at me and someone takes it for good without investigating it (i.e. checking my edits), he violates WP:AGF in his relation with me, i.e. he assumes I'm guilty until proven otherwise.

I also agree the case should be ended long time ago. The issue in the first place was anyway not whether more sources and points of views can be added, but the way they are added. For instance, when I reverted the last edit of Newport I haven't removed any source (he didn't add any, for that matter), just his "tightening up" which removed Ionesco's own uncertainty on his own maternal ancestry and created a new contradiction between him and his daughter.

If Newport indeed intends to build a case to get Ionesco listed as a Jew, my opposition will continue, as long as there's a reliable thread of opinions that his Jewish origins are remote (I'm yet to see an alternative genealogy of him where his "Jewishness" doesn't come from his great-grandmother) or perhaps even not that certain. Pushkin was not an African. 07:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think Ionesco should be listed as a Jew as long as there's doubt to whether he really is. Newport was wrong in removing the statement about Ionesco's uncertainty on his maternal ancestry. That should be included. mcr616 _Speak! 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Daizus's version is more NPOV and includes both viewpoints. Thats the version that should be used. mcr616 _Speak! 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)