Talk:Marina Abramović

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

Abramovic[edit] a jewish surname, can't help it. So how about that? And please don't mix up jewish ethnicity with religious belief and ctitzenship of Israel and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

another provocation?[edit]

on the first pic Abramovic wears the mentioned "Austrian Decoration for Science and Art" on a ribbon around the neck. The order should be worn on the breast (see numerous pics in the net) and NOT like the WWII knightscross. Another provocation of Abramovic, saying people like her are the kingthscross-bearers of our days? Any info on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Spirit Cooking[edit]

Any updates on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, why nothing about that affair and what are spirit cooking according to the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2CCC:E644:65FA:30C8 (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

once again spirit cooking/podesta emails[edit]

how about mentioning the Podesta emails scandal, involving Abramovic in a weird way. You can also bring her reaction to it. But spirit cookiing itself should defintely get a point in the "carreer-list". as several others demand the same thing - don't look away, doesn't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Until the mainstream media mentions it, Wikipedia will not publish it. Zykodern (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


Solo performances in the early 1970's "Rhythms"

Shout until she was completely hoarse.

Dance until she collapsed.

Buffeted by a wind machine until she passed out.

Rhythm 5 (1974)

She lay down in the center of a fire until she passed out from lack of oxygen and had to be rescued.

Rhythm 0 (1974 )

Stood in the space of the Studio Mona Gallery in Naples next to a table holding 72 objects. Tools, scissors, a loaded gun.

Performance had to stop because after the visitors had cut off all her clothing, she was also required to place the barrel of the gun into her open mouth.

Visitors were invited to use them and her as they saw fit.

Seven Easy Pieces[edit]

I've begun editing the article, adding new text and information, and, most importantly, providing references and citations throughout. It seems clear to me that the Ayers review from Total Theatre magazine that comprises almost all of the final section will have to be entirely removed, and the information compressed and paraphrased.--Galliaz 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally excised the text of Ayer's Total Theatre review (it had been jammed into the entry en toto.) There are clear copyright issues with it being present in the entry, and, stylistically, it was a nightmare. I plan to add a brief section on the critical response to the recent Guggenheim performances soon.

I went ahead and gave the Seven Easy Pieces their own page, because I think it's time that a number of important performances (such as that one, for instance) get their own articles. I'll be getting to the originals of the ones she performed in a bit. --AlbertHerring 22:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Teaching practice[edit]

Mention should be made of Abramovic's teaching practice. She has produced a book about it called Student Body. Unfortuntely I do not have access to a copy, but I was once fortunate enough to see a showcase of her students' work from when she was teaching at HBK Braunschweig. The students' clarity of vision was quite remarkable, way beyond what you would typically expect at undergraduate level. Ireneshusband 11:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation for birth certificate comment?[edit]

"(born 30 November 1946,

In 1976, after moving to Amsterdam, Abramović met the West German performance artist Uwe Laysiepen, who went by the single name Ulay. They had both been born on the same day, though in completely different regimes: her birth certificate was marked by a five-rayed star, while his had a swastika."

Is there a source for that seems a bit odd since by the end of 1946 denazification should have been very intense. Or is it supposed to be metaphorical mispresented as fact.

Yeah, I get your point, the swastika certainly wouldn't have been on a document issued in 1946. I'm working to track down that source (which I don't own). However, here's info on the actual date from an interview in Artist Body (Charta, 1998): MA: So I met Ulay and it was the day I was born, my birthday, and his birthday. Interviewer: November 30? MA: November 30... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galliaz (talkcontribs) 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Ulay was born on the same day, but in 1943, not 1946, so his birth certificate may well have spotted a swastika. -- megA (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How long has she been givin the same lecture?[edit]

"She is currently at Bard College in Upstate New York giving a lecture."

Is the lecture still going on?
I bet she is lecturing about herself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

English is not my first language so i dare not to edit this, but when i read this sentence, it sounds like she is, at this very moment, still holding the same lecture. Is she a lecturer there, does she reside in upstate NY? shouldnt this be more defined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pailhead (talkcontribs) 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Both of her parents were of Montenegrin nationality, and she considers herself Montenegrin, as she mentioned in recent intereview for TV of Montenegro, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the text???

Find references. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence about her nationality. If she said that she is Montenegrin (but no is no reference yet), it most of cases it is geografical reference only. Truth is that she never explicit said about her nationality, so it is not objective to refer to her as Montenegrin, nor Serb. Surname Abramović is alomost never Serbian or Montenigran, but Jewish. There is also trend on english wikipeda in recent years of proclaiming more and more people for Montenigrins, without any clear evidence, for political reasons, as a part of Montenegrin "national awake", and I am affraid this is part of it. Only objective statement is that her nationality is unknown, or that she is American of unknown (Jewish, Montenegrin or Serbian descents). Sorry for bad english. Cheers! (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

New external link[edit]

I have added a link to a video of the artist talking about her performance practice throughout her career. It is an interesting look into her artistic process. T.Broch (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinon, you shouldn't. Are there videos on other artists pages? Look a little too promotional IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2CCC:E644:65FA:30C8 (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Table in "the Artist is Present"[edit]

Does anyone know at which point the table (which can be seen in the picture taken in March) was removed? Because when I was at the MoMA on May 12, 2010, there was no table. (I dimly remembered somewhere that Ms Abramovic had the table removed at some point, but I don't remember when that was. She also wore a white gown when I was there...) -- megA (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's removed two months upon opening, by Marina's request. She talks about it in "The Artist Is Present", movie about her and her show at MoMA. -- (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Marina's nationality[edit] Marina is a self-declared Montenegrin, has a Montenegrin passport and has represented Montenegro at the last Biennale in Venice. It seems that only the Croatian Wikipedia respects that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and just all other wikipedias say different (and with more valid references), Croatian must be right... -- (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Croatian wikipedia has allready problems with writing a lot of offensive and incorrect contents. So If I where you , I would rather find information in some neutral wikipedia .

Nationality disputed[edit]

Two days ago in Serbian TV, Marina clearly identify herself as a Serbian, and speaks on clear Serbian, and not not Montenegrin language. More references coming as soon as published. For now there is no strong evidence that her nationality is strictly, or at all Montenegrin. So there is any right to change in text her name no "Montenegrin Cyrillic" and putting in many places her nationality to Montenegrin, using just one non-clear reference, that can be interpenetrated in many ways. I already said that this is almost wiki vandalism, made by ultra-right Montenegrin users, with no interest in objectivity, but only in ultra-nationalism. I insist on reverse back in article her nationality to "Serbian-American", as it was, or leaving just "American" as she really is, and she clearly is, without any speculations. -- (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, she was born in Yugoslavia, and her parents were partisans (therefore communists, and that's what she says in her film The Artist is Present), I doubt she was ever raised to feel as being Serbian or Montenegrin since communist are anti-nationalists. Second, she doesn't live in Serbia nor Montenegro, she lives in New York, so most correct would probably be to say that she is an American, and if she moved there from Yugoslavia, then Yugoslav-American (and why the hell not?). But as far as I am concerned, she is a citizen of the World, end of story. We should probably give her and everybody else a break about her nationality anyways -- (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) How many other sources proving that she's Montenegrin do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasho992 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Per neutral, non-Montenegrin sources, she is not Montenegrin. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationality claims in this article are seriously problematic and article looks very Serb dominated, biased and false at the end trying to hide everything that can be said in favor of her being Montenegrin. Not even a word is written on her Montenegrin roots by both - father and mother as well as on her official Montenegrin citizenship and her personal feelings of being Montenegrin. This is not Montenegrin or anyone's else source, but Marina speaks herself (pls see second half of the video).

The Artist is Present[edit]

Shouldn't there be a page specifically for the documentary "The Artist is Present"? --Matt723star (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Create one.--A21sauce (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to add the following details about The Artist is present soon unless someone objects:

"Marina Abramovic sat in a rectangle drawn with tape in the floor of the second floor atrium of the MoMA; theater lights shone on her sitting in a chair and a chair opposite her. Visitors waiting in line were invited to sit individually across from the artist while she maintained eye contact with them. Visitors began crowding the atrium within days of the show opening, some gathering before the exhibit opened each morning to rush for a more preferable place in the line to sit with Abramovic. Most visitors sat with the artist for five minutes or less and the line attracted no attention from museum security except for the last day of the exhibition when a visitor vomited in line and another began to disrobe. Tensions among visitors in line could have arisen from an understanding that for every minute each person in line spent with Abramovic, there would be that many fewer minutes in the day for those further back in line to spend with the artist. Due to the strenuous nature of sitting for hours at a time, some have speculated as to whether Abramovic wore an adult diaper to eliminate the need to move to urinate. Others have highlighted the movements she made in between sitters as a focus of analysis, as the only variations in the artist between sitters were when she would cry if a sitter cried and her moment of physical contact with Ulay, one of the earliest visitors to the exhibition. Abramovic sat across from 1,545 sitters, including James Franco, Lou Reed and Bjork; sitters were asked not to touch or speak to the artist. By the end of the exhibit, hundreds of visitors were lining up outside the museum overnight to secure a spot in line the next morning. Abramovic concluded the performance by slipping from the chair where she was seated and rising to a cheering crowd more than ten people deep."

Source: Marcus, Sharon (January 2015) ”Celebrity 2.0: the Case of Marina Abramovic” Public Culture, Duke University Press.--Mintzosbourne (User talk:Mintzosbourne\talk) 19:28, 20 Feb 2016 (EST)

Pop culture references[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section for pop culture references that could feature stuff like this? Kim Stanley Robinson's science fiction novel 2312 mentions a style of performance art pieces known as "abramovics". Normosphere (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add a Pop Culture reference section. After The Artist is Present, Abramović’s popularity increased in the world of celebrities because of the iconic people who attended. After her performance piece, many celebrities tried to duplicate her work or work with her[1]. Examples of this are Lady Gaga and Jay-Z.

I think the Other section should refined. Seeing that someone else has suggested the Pop Culture reference section, I feel the text about Lady Gaga in the Other section better belongs in this newly proposed one.One anecdote I would like to add is about her collaboration with Jay Z [2]. Due to the outcome, I think it perfectly transitions into the section of Controversies that now follows the Other section. Another user has also suggested an example to be included in the Pop Culture reference section above that I am not familiar with but would further contribute showing a need for it on the page.

On a side note I think the controversies sections needs to heavily be revised. There is a lot in today’s media about lawsuits between Ulay and Marina[3]. The dynamic between them could be of great influence to accurately depicting her character on this page --Artistoncanvas (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Name of final piece with Ulay[edit]

What was that final piece at the Great Wall called?--A21sauce (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marina Abramović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhythm 2[edit]

The section on Rhythm 2 in this revision that has been reverted twice now, has the order of the medications correct.

According to this source:

Dezeuze, Anna; Ward, Frazer (2012). "Marina Abramovic: Approaching zero". The "do-it-yourself" artwork: participation from Fluxus to new media. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 132–144. ISBN 978-0-7190-8747-9. 

"she first took a drug usually given to catatonic patients to make them move, then, after the effects of that had worn off, a drug given to schizophrenic patients to calm them down"

Proposed merge with Marina Abramović Institute[edit]

the Institute is not yet notable enough for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 11:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears in the New York Times, The Guardian, and Harper's Bazaar. It is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8000:C2AB:9F:CACD:A515:D38E (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This artist is quite notable and well referenced and should remain a separate article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge. I was just checking up on old "proposed museum" articles (to move ones that have petered out to category "failed museum proposals," stumbled on this "Institute," and was looking into whether it had ever been notable, when I foudn hti merge discussion. The Institute should certainly be merged here.@DGG:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed--if you are willing, please just go ahead and do it. Barbara (WVS), WP:N explains that there possibility of writing two articles does not imply that both must be written as separate articles. The reason for this is that it is much better to have one strong complete article than two weaker ones. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Merged "Institute" here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 November 2016[edit]

This page incorrectly states that Abramovic pioneered the notion of identity via the participation of observers. Yoko Ono was the first, when she performed "Cut Piece" in 1964, over a decade prior to Abramovic. Yoko Ono's "Cut Piece" had the observers use tools, such as scissors, to rip or cut her clothes off, to see how far the audience would go until she was nude. LordMeShepherd (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Religious view[edit]

She wears a cross on Wikipedia picture. Is it intentional? Is she a devoted religious or is it only a fashion style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2CCC:E644:65FA:30C8 (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marina Abramović. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP violations[edit]

@Pppooojjjaaa: The problem isn't the citations, the problem is with the text. Describing someone as "controversial" in the lead violates WP:LABEL. In addition, you seem committed to adding material that makes it appear that she took part in "occult rituals with members of the Democratic Party," even though there's no evidence that this happened. If you persist in your conspiracy-mongering I will report this to WP:BLP/N. FallingGravity 22:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether neutral, positive or negative, citations-backed text is to stay. Also, is it bad to write "super-famous" for a big star and "criminal" for a living criminal? No, as long as it is backed by citations. I am anyway reporting it. Thanks. Meanwhile, I encourage you to read the link you sent here. " are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Also, I am not writing in the text that she practices occult activities. Not do I believe anything like occult or satanic exists. However, there has been a controversy about it, and I am simply mentioning that this controversy occurred. Also, I am reporting it so the conclusion will serve for both. Thanks. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Pppooojjjaaa:,"Whether neutral, positive or negative, citations-backed text is to stay" is not the right approach to take here. We certainly do omit referenced material (particularly negative material) from biographies all the time, per WP:BLP which is a core policy.
Now on the merits. I don't know as description as "controversial" is out of line. She's a performance artist. Performance artists tend to be controversial. "Controversial" is fairly anodyne here. So one question to ask is "would a reasonable person consider this person to be the subject of controversies sufficient to mention in the the lede"? Looking at the refs, sure looks like it to me. "Controversial" is not necessarily pejorative in all cases. My guess is that she's be more miffed if we described her as "Uncontroversial -- beloved by people from 8 to 80 in all walks of life, and popular with family audiences and everyone else", n'est-ce pas? She'd figure she's doing something wrong. I support the inclusion of the word "controvsial" in the lede, with references.
As to some of the rest... the Inquistr ref is no good for "While many accuse them of being satanic in nature". First of all, who are what is Inquistr? Never heard of them, they are not the New York Times, they are probably not an AAA-level ref and we want an AAA-level ref for slinging the word "satanic" around any living person. Second of all, the ref just says "Abramovic’s work was criticized as being satanic" without specifying by whom which -- they're not saying it themselves, they're handwaving at some unnamed sources and that is useless. This is not a good ref. Not even close. Don't use refs like that to make contentious claims about a living human.
All refs for contentious material about living humans need to be much better than this, and if the rest of the "Controversy" subsection is ref'd like this it needs to be severely redacted -- erring, as always, on the side of not saying anything negative about a person that we cannot stone-cold prove true. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey, many thanks for your response. I have a few questions which I could not understand.
1. I did not understand this- " She'd figure she's doing something wrong. I support the inclusion of the word "controvsial" in the lede, with references." and ""Controversial" is fairly anodyne here. So one question to ask is "would a reasonable person consider this person to be the subject of controversies sufficient to mention in the the lede"? Looking at the refs, sure looks like it to me." Are you ok with using the term controversial in the lead?
2. Also, kindly note other references, not only Inquisitr which may not be as reputed as the rest of the citations I used, but there are more around 10 citations in the entire article about her controversies.
3. Controversy need not be good or bad - or pejorative- I agree completely.
4. "Abramovic’s work was criticized as being satanic" without specifying by whom- The citation now does state who accused etc about the controversy (it was leaked and official wikileaks link is in the article). I believe guardian is an AAA reference? Please let me know if not.
5. Her controversies about racist remarks on aboriginals, accused of inviting diplomats t spirit cooking are well sourced and you can even help by replacing with a better source, or I will do it if I notice. Thanks.
6. "She's a performance artist. Performance artists tend to be controversial." True, but I can not write this, instead all I can do is cite and write. Is it that if a profession is controversial, then one can not write that the person in the profession is controversial? It is not about other performance artists (as I am not looking for citations to every performance artist as of now). But specifically about Marina, her controversies are not only limited to (as I quoted above New York times acknowledged that her activities are perceived as "disgusting" by many) her art performances, but her controversies go as far as racism, not acknowledging artist whose work inspired her acts and allegedly inviting diplomats for spirit cooking.
Therefore, I hope I have answered all your queries. :) Thanks again for your patience. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think "controversial" belongs in the lead. What is being mistaken for controversial is "pushing the envelope" which is what artists commonly do. It does not warrant comment. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, can you please give an non-opinionated answer. Artists like Musicians, dancers, actors, painters and other kinds of performers do not call aboriginals dinosaurs or do spiritual cooking, and are not called "disgusting" by New York Times. Opinions differ. I just want to know if it violated any policy in a black-or-white kind of way. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Pppooojjjaaa—the question is whether she should be called controversial in the lead. Is she really notable for being controversial? Most people can be considered controversial for one reason or another. The real question is whether she is controversial as a performance artist. In the context of performance art I don't think she is controversial. She is mainstream in the context of performance art. One could almost go so far as to say she sets the standard for what performance art should be. Bus stop (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, going by the consensus I am removing the "controversial" from the lead. (On a different note, I completely disagree that she sets standards of performance art. Cutting own self alone or in public are both horrendous- which is exactly why New York Times mentioned that she is often called disgusting. Many people cut themselves for all sorts of reason like pleasing Gods so on.) So, I am removing it form the lead, thanks for helping out. Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Pppooojjjaaa—there are exceptions to everything. Obviously one should not cut oneself. I didn't mean to imply that aspiring artists should learn to cut themselves. Thank you for pointing that out. I agree. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop thanks so much. Means a lot, really :) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm locking the article per BLP: no mas with this Pizzagate talk until there is a consensus. Also, I spotted what appears to be a copyvio. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pppooojjjaaa:, you've been edit warring over this content for some time now, slowly but surely. You are very likely to get blocked if you continue with this after it's unlocked. Also, you really need to learn how to paraphrase: that "prestigious group" bit, as well as the quote from the NYT, are lifted straight from the source without quotes. Moreover, but this is an editorial note, you need to contextualize and attribute properly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I don;t know how competent you are as an admin because you just reverted a "copy pasted sentence from New York Times"" that had a citation from same "New York Times article" . It was not copied without quotes. It was inside "". Anyway, see here- a request for deletion/blocking of my article- (I think I could do better for myself than editing a body-cutter's biography) [[1]]. So , can you block my account? I was actually just posting this request on your talk page. Thanks. And good luck editing wiki for the next decade. (Just guess provoking would be a double benefit here to get blocked. 3 hours just to get blocked- that's long) Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Not only block, I would appreciate if I am automatically logged out, deleted from login credentials. If My email id and username could be removed from login database. Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No mention of "Spirit Cooking" conspiracy theory?[edit]

Considering "Pizzagate" now has its own article, surely the "Spirit Cooking" conspiracy theory should be mentioned here? A number of mainstream sources are mentioning the incident:

HelgaStick (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm suggesting a sentence or two, making it 100% clear that the conspiracy theory has been debunked. HelgaStick (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to add it a couple days ago, describing the "Spirit Cooking" art piece and using this article to explain how this conspiracy was false, but Drmies removed it after connecting it to the recent Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) and citing WP:BLP concerns. FallingGravity 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: The spirit cooking matter is mentioned at the Pizzagate and Michael G. Flynn articles. Doesn't it seem logical that it would be discussed here, too? HelgaStick (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That it would be mentioned in the Flynn article or elsewhere doesn't mean it should be mentioned here--that first of all. I protected the article because of the edit warring above, and because the sources given (then) seemed tenuous to me, and the BLP tells me it's better to be safe than sorry. (The revdeletion was for copyright concerns, not for BLP reasons.) If you all, that is, a consensus of reasonable editors carrying briefcases full of reliable sources, think it appropriate, then go ahead. HelgaStick makes a note about how to write it up, so I don't have to remind y'all of the importance of what's proper. Handle it delicately, and do not let this one thing overwhelm the subject's career. I'll go ahead and unprotect. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Estranged from her family and Communist Connections[edit]

According to the article above, Marina is accused by her brother of having falsified her biography and of not only being a communist, but indeed also had connections to Mussolini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:F098:E5CD:94E2:81E7 (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wait... So she's a Communist AND she's connected to fascism through Mussolini? ...You do see why this is a contradiction, right? The two ideologies being diametrically opposed and all. God, the alt-right is willing to blatantly contradict itself to spread its BS (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)