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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Eugène Ionesco State: Open Requested By: Newport Other Parties: Newport , User:20.138.246.89 and User:Daizus Mediated By: User:HIZKIAH Comments: On hold while one of the parties is away

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

[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)

[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

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)