Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)

Lead

Coldcreation has been edit-warring to revert these changes, which attempt to summarize what the rest of the article says about the controversy over who created this piece (reported today in BoingBoing, but ongoing in other sources for much longer). Coldcreation's preferred lead states flatly that it was produced by Duchamp, while the text later in the article reports on multiple possible theories for who the pseudonymous creator might be, including both Duchamp and two women. Can we have additional opinions on which lead to keep or what additional changes to the lead might be appropriate, please? In their reversions, Coldcreation cites a supposed ongoing discussion of the issue, but I see no such discussion (the last edits on this talk were a week ago), so maybe we can discuss it here. Note that I am currently taking no position on the title of the article (the subject of earlier discussions), only on what its lead should say. I note that the previous discussion of the title did include a sentiment that this issue be mentioned in the lead, and that Coldcreation's opposition there to any changes mostly focused on bad-faith accusations against proponents of change rather than on the substantive issues of the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• The vast majority of art historical understanding has the urinal as Duchamp's entree into art history....[1], [2], [3]; we need to come to an understanding here as to how to describe the strange and bizarre way this piece came into being. Best to settle the lede here...Modernist (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I should add - IMO the lede should stay as is; Fountain is a 1917 work produced by Marcel Duchamp; the news media is obsessed with new twists to old stories, sells papers, like van Gogh didn't shoot himself, it was those nasty juveniles, that no one has any proof on...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein If you think that is edit-warring you haven't been at Wikipedia very long. Firstly, your edit does not "summarize what the rest of the article says about the controversy over who created this piece". It unduly changes attribution or authorship. It is not a work of Dada art "conventionally credited to Marcel Duchamp" that "may have instead been created by" someone else. According to art historians, major museum curators, and the artist himself, Fountain is a work by Duchamp (also, Fountain was an anti-art Readymade, not Dada). Until there is academic consensus among scholars, experts, and the relevant specialists publish something to the contrary, there is little basis for Wikipedia to engage in speculation or conspiracy theories regarding the attribution of such a work. The claims that Freytag-Loringhoven is responsible for Fountain is easily debunked. While the controversy is worthy of mention (both in the lead and body of text), it is irresponsible at this point to alter authorship of a work that changed the course of art history based on the arguably uninformed or biased opinions of Irene Gammel, Glyn Thompson and Julian Spalding. Coldcreation (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a difficult case, as there is some evidence, per Duchamp's letter to his sister, that a female co-creator was involved. On the other hand, to totally go against Duchamp's word and the opinion of art experts would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. A possible option since the controversy is covered in the text, add a brief sentence in a concluding paragraph of the lead such as "There are disputed claims that Fountain was co-created by Dada artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven". This issue is also summarized with possible undue weight in the Dada article, in its New York section, so editors may want to look at that wording to see if it's appropriate or needs to be changed as well. Personal note to David Eppstein: I am looking for ships in Fountain, but have yet to find them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that not what my proposed text does with its "conventionally credited to Duchamp", followed by a summary of the alternative theories? It certainly does not unduly assert authorship in a case where the authorship is not clear, as the previous version does. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really, because your edit removes the credit from Duchamp and calls his work into question right upfront in the lead. Wikipedia has no reason to take any credit away from Duchamp, and may never have any. Adding a non-declarative sentence at the end of the lead, which contain the words 'disputed claims', seems to cover the sources without removing Duchamp's academically accepted credit. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

My edit says "conventionally credited to Duchamp". That is not removing the credit. It then summarizes the controversy, as WP:NPOV requires us to do. If some editors here think we should be evaluating which sources are more credible and reporting their side as correct and the other side as wrong, then they themselves are doing Wikipedia wrong. And it's certainly possible to find recent academic work that does not accept Duchamp's credit uncritically; see or for instance. We should not make the mistake of thinking that this credit dispute is in popular sources and therefore unimportant, or of thinking that certain slow-to-react institutions' (like Wikipedia's) slowness to react means there is nothing to react to. PS Some more recent popular press links: . —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, I was waiting for others to reply. I don't click on many outside links, never know where it ends up and I try to keep the barrage of ads off my computer. It froze up yesterday off a Wikipedia talk-page discussion link. Was hoping that others would go in and summarize and comment about what is at the links. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favour of adding a sentence at the end of the lead (the sentence: There are disputed claims that Fountain was co-created by Dada artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven" seems to do the job). The previous (conventionally credited to, but may have been made by .. Norton/von Freytag-Loringhoven) is formulated a bit too much in favor of the latter two maybe. I would reformulate the first sentence to Fountain is a 1917 pseudonymous work of Dada art, (conventionally) credited to Marcel Duchamp. Femkemilene (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why separate the two parts of the lead that talk about credit? That makes no sense structurally. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

If your first sentence suggestion is approved, without the unneeded parenthesis or even the word 'conventially' , I still like Johnbod's idea of changing the name to Fountain (R. Mott). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• The work is signed R. Mutt (not R. Mott). Also, until further consensus by art historians that Duchamp did not produce this work, there is no need to change the name of the article. Fountain was an anti-art Readymade, not a work of Dada. I am in favor of adding a sentence at the end of the lead to the effect; 'There are disputed claims that Fountain was co-created by Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven or Louise Norton.'Coldcreation (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this - as I said above when making the original "Mutt" suggestion. End of para 1 probably. There's a case for making R. Mutt a redirect anyway - ah, it already is. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above - until art history, major museums and institutions begin to change their identification regarding Duchamp's creative ownership of the readymade Fountain the lede should remain as is. A sentence at the end of the lede might bring mention of the new controversy...Modernist (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. No need to propagate a myth, if that's indeed what it is. Coldcreation (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Art history" has certainly "begun to change their identification" as the citations above clearly indicate. So your "until" is vacuous. It's already true and therefore the lead should not remain as is. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? When MoMA, and the Met, and the Louvre, and the Tate Tate link, and the Chicago Art Institute, and The National Gallery of Art, and the Whitney Museum of American Art all go there, then we can change...Modernist (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Phooey! If you mean the group at the "reflist" above, the only clear RS is the long notice by Tate Britain, which takes a staunchly pro-Duchamp position. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That group was from an earlier discussion about the article title, where we need to choose one title rather than report all sides. Here we are discussing the lead, a different issue where WP:NPOV requires us to report all significant aspects of the issue, and MOS:LEAD requires the lead to reflect the content of the article. I have identified multiple scholarly papers and multiple reliable popular news sources earlier in this discussion that either accept the updated credit or take the issue as under debate rather than settled. Have you read the discussion at all? But for the lazy readers I append a list of the sources I have already linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

David Eppstein Careful who you call lazy. Coldcreation (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm not impressed - I can't actually see the only proper RS there because of paywalls (the Higgs extract may be another one). There's just no such thing as a "reliable popular news source" when it comes to something like this. If you knew more about the field of art history you'd know that such sources print stories about "controversies" and "new discoveries" about famous art almost daily, and the great majority of them are never widely accepted in the field. A bit of a contrast to the coverage of maths I expect. We should be following the broad consensus of scholarly opinion, paying particular attention to major museums. The long Tate piece was revised in 2015, perhaps to counter Higgs' book, and considers and essentially rejects the Baroness's role. Museums like SFMOMA owning examples of the replicas have had nearly 3 years to consider changing their attributions, & you have not produced any that have done so. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the second time this month that an editor has insinuated that my expertise in mathematical topics is a black mark that should be held against me when I dare to edit non-mathematical topics. This sort of bad-faith assumption and anti-intellectualism should have no place on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That's why I provided quotes from the paywelled sources, so that you have to work harder to pretend they're not relevant. And yet, you took that extra step. Also, you're fine with Modernist basing their position on sources from artsy.net, theartstory.org, and an irrelevant SFMOMA link that doesn't go into any scholarly detail about the credit and is about a piece that is unquestionably by Duchamp (the 1960s replica)? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

3xec No, too lazy to read that too. But I have read the Tate & SFMOMA, among others. What extra step? They may be relevant, but they are not as authoritative as museums. Disputes over attribution are very common, and there are different ways of handling them, depending on the balance of expert opinion. This one, starting in 2002 if not before, has not reached the stage where your changes would be justified. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Those were the precise links that I was referring to as unusable as reliable sources. I also added a link to the Tate - did you read it? Tate link. Should major museums begin to accept the premise that Duchamp's Fountain needs to be altered; then this article should reflect that change...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• By the way the Philadelphia Museum, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the website Artsy carry a lot of weight in the contemporary art world...Modernist (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have already indicated why the SFMOMA link is irrelevant. But the Tate link is in-depth, addresses the issue, and summarizes the alternative claims for credit, including a pull quote "We do not even known with absolute certainty that Duchamp was the artist". Surely we can say as much here, rather than insisting on a lead that falsely conveys to the reader a certainty that the Tate does not have? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That quote was from Camfield 1989, p.13. Tate clearly states "Fountain is one of Duchamp’s most famous works and is widely seen as an icon of twentieth-century art." Coldcreation (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

      1989 is well after the 1982 discovery of Duchamp's letter and well before the current media frenzy, so I don't see how that date in any way counts against that source. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) The nominator, probably out of frustration from previous inconclusive discussions, has piled on in a single RfC many issues as well as conditional ("if yes to 1&2 then what") and fuzzy queries ("what changes are needed?"). Complexity and vagueness always create fog in the dialogue. Yet, we can, if barely, save the day by focusing on what is clear.

No one can reasonably deny that the issue of authorship is of primary importance in articles about art objects. Citing in the text a claim for different authorship that has been offered by multiple reliable sources cannot therefore be assessed as giving undue weight to it. Consequently, such an alternative hypothesis cannot but be summarily reflected in the lead section, since, per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead serves as a summary of [the article's] most important contents. The only question is, therefore, whether the alternative hypothesis is supported amply enough for a mention in the text. That question seems to have already been answered since no editor has come foward demanding the relevant claims be removed from the main text.
The result, then, as most respondents have suggested, is a clear preference for both #1 and #2, i.e. to retain the alternative hypotheses in the text and retain the current, brief mention of them at the tail end of the lead section.
There were not many suggestions to insert such claims into image legends. - The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

---

We keep having discussions on this that peter out without reaching a clear consensus, so it is my hope that a formal RFC will bring in a broader set of editors and improve the state of affairs.

Historically this artwork has been credited as being by Marcel Duchamp. But, it was originally signed under a pseudonym and in the 1980s a letter was discovered in which Duchamp credited an unnamed female friend for the work. Many recent sources, including both popular press, academic journal articles, and the Tate Museum (see discussion), have felt it necessary to at least mention this issue. Several of these sources outline alternative theories for its authorship and the identity of this friend, including Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, Louise Norton, or a female alter ego of Duchamp himself. Our article, too, describes these alternative theories in its body, but the lead (which by MOS:LEAD should accurately summarize the body) instead flatly says "produced by Marcel Duchamp") and the lead image (redundantly) also says "by Marcel Duchamp" without qualification. We have had multiple past discussions on this issue but they have tended to peter out inconclusively, and then their lack of conclusion has been used repeatedly by editors Coldcreation and Modernist as a reason for keeping the status quo, with any changes to the lead being reverted with edit summaries like "needs to be settled at talk page" or "per talk". In the meantime, another editor Trishcan has entered the debate with an alternative lead that in my mind goes too far in another direction, going into excessive detail in the lead about the authorship question and choosing sides in favor of Elsa.

So, can we have a wider discussion, please, on the following five questions:

1. Should the alternative authorship theories be described in the body of the article, as they now are?
2. Should the lead summarize that part of the article?
3. Should the authorship of the artwork be mentioned at all in the caption of the lead image?
4. If the answers to parts (1) and (2) are yes, is the proposed summary in this old version of the lead accurate or, if not, what changes are needed to make it conform to MOS:LEAD?
5. Alternatively, is Trishcan's lead, crediting EvFL rather than Duchamp, a better starting point for a new lead?

We have also had discussions here about whether "(Duchamp)" is an accurate disambiguator for the article title but I would prefer to keep that out of the RFC for now. For the record, my own answers to these questions are (1) yes, with no additional changes needed; (2) yes, (3) no, (4) yes, (5) no. (In more detail re 4 vs 5: We should teach the controversy rather than picking sides, per WP:NPOV. And I don't think it is currently the consensus of art scholarship that EvFL created it. Rather, there are still many scholars who hold to the Duchamp theory, and others who would more likely say that it's unclear rather than picking any alternative theory. So until such a consensus is formed I think saying so here is premature.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Brief sentence at conclusion of lead. I think a sense of a consensus was reached above to add a one-sentence paragraph at the end of the lead saying something like: "There are disputed claims that Fountain was co-created by Dada artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven." The piece has been recognized and not de-recognized as Duchamp's by art experts and museums (as noted in the above discussions), so any major change in the lead sentences, in attribution, and in other forms of popular-media digression will have to wait until the major art critics and art museums agree. That's a long way off, if ever, and Wikipedia should wait (and may end up waiting a long time, into the era of "Holograph Wikipedia" and beyond...) until they change their analysis and attribution. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Repeating What I said Before - until art history, major museums and institutions begin to change their identification regarding Duchamp's creative ownership of the readymade Fountain the lede should remain as is. A sentence at the end of the lede might bring mention of the new controversy...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this means you prefer absolutely no change to the lead, or whether like Randy you are in favor of a lead that says "by Duchamp. blah blah blah other stuff. Maybe not by Duchamp." Can you please give more direct answers to my questions? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeating What I said Before - the lede should remain as is...Modernist (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leave as is. According to Tate, "Fountain is one of Duchamp’s most famous works", not one of Freytag-Loringhoven's. Until that description (and those of other museums and art historians) changes, there is no justification in expanding upon what appears, at best, to be a conspiracy theory. Coldcreation (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your answers to #1, #2, and #3 are yes, no, yes (and #4 and #5 moot because of those answers)? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, my answer is leave as is for now. Coldcreation (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This sort of passive-agressive "I won't clarify anything in the discussion and will then use the unclarity of the discussion as an excuse to avoid any change" is exactly why I called the RFC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

For a more in depth explanation see discussions above. This is the third or fourth on the topic. Coldcreation (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this "we have discussed this before" is another part of the same passive-aggressive use of the fact that past discussions tailed off to enforce the status quo, and the unclear conclusions of those past discussions is exactly why I am asking for a more clear statement of everyone's position. For that matter, I have yet to see a clear statement from anyone justifying a lead that does not summarize the article; all arguments on this point have been on whether the attribution to Duchamp is still widely accepted (a matter for the in-depth article content) not on whether it is appropriate to have a lead that fails to summarize the text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a reason I suggest the brief but clear sentence for the lead, because it summarizes a portion of the page. But Wikipedia should not cast "official" encyclopedic doubt on the conclusions of the major museums and art experts, which is why the language should use "disputed" or even a stronger term in a very brief lead summary. I'd rather leave it off, per Coldcreation, but the page should be summarized in the lead even if it will then contain a recently-popularized but questionable "theory". Wouldn't mind if no mention was made in the lead, although surrealism would demand it (as this RfC, hopefully, will escalate into the realm of artwork). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No need to violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section (per MOS:LEAD). Coldcreation (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, and I will give thought to consider changing my first comment. In the meantime I'd like to time-machine back to hear the learned opinion of editor R. Mutt 1917, esquire. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (1) yes; (2) yes, a succinct sentence at the end of the lead would satisfy the need to summarize the article without giving the matter undue weight; (3) maybe a brief "often attributed to Marcel Duchamp" would work; (4) yes; (5) no. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Brief sentence at end of lead is generous. The "previous version" cited at 4 above is akin to teach the Controversy, ie it is giving undue WEIGHT to a fringe-y theory, rather than discussing the work itself. Even if proven that the artwork was 'created' by someone other than Duchamp, so long as authorities credit it to him - so should we. As someone who has had good ideas 'borrowed' by others (not in visual arts), I know that it is the one who "takes the cow to market' who gets the rosette ! Pincrete (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (1) yes; (2) yes, and at the very least "produced by" should be replaced by "traditionally attributed to"; (3) no; there is too much controversy (4) yes; (5) no.

I feel that there is ample reason to express doubt on the traditional belief that "Fountain" was submitted by Duchamps: his own letter, and the sisterpiece "God" now co-attributed to EvFL being two major indications to the contrary. And perhaps we should not rely too much on the Tate for guidance in this case. For they have a vested interest in keeping the old belief upright. Just like the other 4 or so museums who were unfortunate enough to acquire a replica of a readymade, ordained by its presumed "original artifician".

I also urge for a proper translation of the key phrase in Duchamps' letter (in the section about the controversy). Assuming that the French original was indeed as shown, the word "me" in "sent me a porcelain urinal" must be removed, or replaced with "in". Obbart (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The translation of the letter has been corrected. Coldcreation (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Inclusion of a neutrally-worded sentence or phrase in the lead noting the existence of the controversy seems appropriate. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• There should be nothing written in the lead about possible misattribution of "Fountain" to Duchamp as this is a distraction from the implications of the piece itself. There is a paragraph called "Controversy" and that is entirely where this matter should be addressed. There is no sense in strewing this matter about willy-nilly. It need not be in the lede. Who cares if Duchamp made it or Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven made it? The artist is not what matters. The work of art is far more important than the artist. We are writing an article supposedly about a work of art. The bulk of reliable sources support that Duchamp is the artist therefore we should confine the dissenting opinion to one paragraph where that initiative can be fully explored without tainting what I think is the larger purpose of this article which is documenting the existence of the work of art itself. Bus stop (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (1) yes (2) yes, but subtly. First sentence to 'attributed to', without the word traditionally and a succinct sentence at the end of lead. The current first sentence is also misleading without considering the controversy as Duchamp did not produce the sculpture, but claims to have bought it and promoted it to a piece of art. (3) no, no reason to (4) no, this gives undue weight to a controversy that is has been mentioned in the scientific literature a couple of times; maybe later if more scientific papers/scientists/major institutions follow. (5) we should credit Duchamp in such a way that leaves only a little bit (not too much!) doubt he came up with this art work and mention the controversy as well. Femkemilene (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Brief sentence at or near conclusion of lead - per my comments in earlier sections. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seeallthis

Hiplibrarianship and Coldcreation have found a new and uninteresting thing to edit-war about: whether a source labeled as a "blog" on seeallthis.com can be used as a reliable source. So in an effort to cut this off, I'd like to start a discussion here instead. Coldcreation's position appears to be that it's a blog and therefore unreliable. However, that's an overly strict reading of our policy. Per WP:RS "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Seeallthis.com appears to be a Dutch art magazine with the usual level of editorial control that one would expect of an art magazine. However, it's a minor-enough magazine that we don't have an article on it. Can we maybe agree that (1) it's not inherently unreliable, but (2) because the same material is already covered by sources that are more well known and at least as reliable, there is no good reason to use this as a source? That is, even though (I believe) this source is not forbidden by policy, I think it would be preferable not to use it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

See All This is an interesting website. I could go along with a brief sentence at or near the conclusion of the lead alerting the reader to conflicting claims regarding artwork and artist. Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate David Eppstein affirming my interpretation of the WP:RS guideline, insofar as SeeAllThis is "not inherently unreliable" for art topics. I was certainly not attempting to "edit-war" with Coldcreation, although I do bristle at any hint of wikilawyering. For what it's worth, my initial contribution was made without awareness of the discussion on this page; I'd simply read the piece and made a good-faith addition of a reference, where there previously had been none. All that said, I still think the current version could be improved, and will proceed, with all due respect. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

HOW many degrees?

180, not 90, shurely? -- A.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.186.140 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and "around it's axis" seems weird as well. Lisiate (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Minority view: source?

The lead states “Some scholars have suggested that the original work was by a female artist rather than Duchamp, but this is a minority view among historians”. Which sources in the article body support the claim that this is minority view? Might this be reworded to something more neutral? JeroenHoek (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How would you suggest it be reworded? Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something that suggests that the origin of the work is disputed by some, but that the matter has as of yet not been resolved? There have been a number of articles in well-regarded newspapers that put forward the theory that Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven was the creator of the work. It seems to be more than a fringe theory at this point, and I think that the article shouldn't conclude that this is a minority view without proper attestation, because that phrasing carries the connotation of dismissing those claims out of hand (which is not something that Wikipedia should do lightly). JeroenHoek (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the lengthy recent discussions above? Or the reference now added to the lead? It is a minority view. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have. I agree with David Eppstein that the current state is that while the work is conventionally attributed to Marcel Duchamp, this attribution is not nearly as certain as it once was. From the sources and publications I've read I don't get the impression that the standpoint that the work may not have been created by Duchamp (although it could have been) is a minority view among historians. To be clear: I can't quantify it at all; minority or majority. The article should reflect that unless there is a source that does provide that quantification. JeroenHoek (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed text to "Some scholars have suggested that the original work was by a female artist rather than Duchamp, but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim." (Source: Tate and references therein). "As Gammel acknowledged, however, there is no contemporary documentary evidence or testimony that points to the involvement of von Freytag-Loringhoven in Fountain. The Baroness, who was certainly not shy of controversy, seems never to have claimed to have been involved...". Coldcreation (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I'm dubious about that - Duchamp's letter is prima facie "documentary evidence", whoever else that is taken to indicate. But "articles in well-regarded newspapers" mean absolutely nothing, except that it is a good news story with a feminist angle. The wording was "a minority view among historians", not "among journalists". "Minority view" ≠ fringe view. Your own formulation "the current state is that while the work is conventionally attributed to Marcel Duchamp, this attribution is not nearly as certain as it once was" does equate to "minority view". Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The letter is not documentary evidence implicating the Baroness. It is therefore only circumstantial evidence. The rest agreed. I will revert my edit in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)