Jump to content

Talk:Banksy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Appearance on Community Channel

I'm not really sure where to post this comment as I'm new to this wikipedia malarky, but I saw Banksy on the Community Channel on Sky Digital a few weeks back doing a short feature on street dancing. I was really quite surprised when I saw him on it; he simply stated his name as 'banksy' and that he was a street dancer. He then went on to show some dances he had choreographed, one where he was with another guy dancing in a scrapyard, and another in a studio with a red backdrop with three guys in top hats and street wear doing another routine. He seemed quite a pleasant chap. The feature was part of a programme about street dancing, and filmed circa 1997ish. Then I looked his name up on here and that article about unmasking him from the Evening Standard, and lo and behold it was the same fella! On the show he had a goatee beard and kangol beret and was much younger. I don't know if this information's of any use, but maybe someone more capable could research it?

How about some more facts?

I don't mean this in a condescending way, but it would be good to have a few more facts about the subject of this article. for example when did Banksy have his epiphany on the train. When & where did he (or perhaps she) start creating these works? Have there been any themes or periods (such as Picasso's cubist phase...) that have been identified in the works? Jon Sept 5 2006.

There are some vague facts known but nothing too solid. For example, the stencil fact is referenced in his book "Wall and Piece" on page 13 as occurring when he was eighteen. If the birth year given in this article is to be believed that would put the time frame around 1992-93.Jfjuno (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Banksy

banksy is one of the few hopes that this world have left. Following his footsteps or at least trying to make change for the better of our future and for the future of young folks is something that we really need to take in consideration before is to late and this world goes down the drain.

Quotes Section

Following the reversion of what I assumed would be a no-brainer edit I am bringing my proposals to this talk. I propose removing the quotations section because, essentially, without providing context we have an irrelevent list of quotes from one of Banksy's books that people thought were cool. We have a project for this type of thing and it's called Wikiquote. Furthermore, as per Wikipedia:Quotations it is advised that editors should avoid stand-alone quotes sections and instead work relevant quotes (i.e. a political quote into a part of the article relating to Banksy's political beliefs) into the article. With the exception of the quotes section at the bottom, this has been done well thus far in this article. If anyone just can't bare to be without the section then may I suggest, as a compromise, adding some additional text to put the existing content into context. raseaCtalk to me 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the statements by Banksy provide interesting insight into his own philosophical underpinnings, and that if possible; they should be preserved or incorporated into relevant points in the article. Moreover, I would posit that these quotes differ somewhat from remarks by most public figures in that Banksy speaks nearly exclusively in short quotes and passages and does not have a great deal of personal testimony on the public record. These statements for instance are included in his book War and Peace as "stand alone" self-declarations accompanying his artwork, and the case could be made that they are a separate part of his overall artistic repertoire and an integral component of his attempted form of “thought-provoking” protest. However, I am willing to cede to WP:consensus on the matter.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on the idea of incorporating into relevant points in the article, but a stand-alone quotes section isn't necessary. raseaCtalk to me 16:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
How about this for a compromise. Move the quotes here, to the talk page instead of delete them outright, that way if someone wants to integrate them into the prose they can with out lookign them back up again.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. raseaCtalk to me 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Statements by Banksy in Wall and Piece








Reliable sources

Hi, I recently cleaned up this article's external links section in accordance with our guidelines and there were a few links that weren't appropriate in there but nonetheless constitute reliable sources so they can be used to add information to the article and then referenced appropriately. I'll list them below for anyone interested in expanding the content of the article.

ThemFromSpace 00:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Banksy rat in Liverpool

We need to sort out this bit about the Liverpool Rat. Different sources are contradictory as to whether the rat is holding a pen or a gun. All of the following clearly say gun:

The following says it is a pen:

This BBC article says "gun-toting," though the picture is not very clear to me:

Until there is a reference that can definitively clear this up, the article should say nothing either way. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Good compromise.
From the picture on the Telegraph article, I get the impression that part of our (my) problem identifying what the rat's holding come from a missing panel. It looks like there's a whole section, about 2m x 60cm, where there's no artwork at all. We can't see any paw or that the rat is actually holding anything. At least, I can't tell.
If we could find an older image, which presumably has the entire piece as originally created, we could quietly OR our way into choosing which sources to use. Otherwise we're left with four "gun"s vs one "marker", and some WP editors' convictions of what it is.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'm (personally) ready to go with "pen":
  • Another BBC (magazine) article has an even crummier picture, but mentions "I think the work originally had a signature on the marker pen but that someone took it."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2008/01/me_and_my_banksy_1.shtml
  • A different Telegraph article (one we might do well to have in our article) has a picture of the rest of the artwork and the building its slathered across. It shows how a marker pen makes sense, a machine gun not so much. Unfortunately, this article says "red lipstick".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/houseprices/3541901/Banksy-graffiti-doubles-derelict-pubs-value.html
  • And here's a nice close image of the ratty portion of the work before its signature panel was stolen (defacing the graffito). Hardly a gun.
http://s196.photobucket.com/albums/aa188/SDSFanatic/Banksy/?action=view&current=banksy_rat_liverpool.jpg
I suggest we disregard the "machine gun" sources and lean toward the "marker" ones. And if this is the only giant rat in Liverpool, do we have to mention what it's holding anyway? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should break with Wikipedia tradition and use our common sense here. The picture shows a red pen and a line drawn by a red pen and therefore one can probably assume that what the rat is holding is a red pen. There are sources to back this up and Google Image searching Banksy Rat Pub will throw up 8 images clearly showing a red line and the end of a red marker on the first page alone. This is a non-issue (which is probably why there's a talk page post about it). raseaCtalk to me 12:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

James DeWeaver

Regarding the recent edits trying to add back in the unreferenced claim about Banksy's nude photo with DeWeaver. That entry has not been here for years. As recently as March the same text had no reference to the supposed nude photo, only to the two men meeting (which was also not supported by any usable references). I'm still tracking diffs to find the origin of the actual text. But whether I find it or not is moot. It is an unreferenced claim on a BLP and cannot stay. I've also done some initial searching to find a reference that supports the meeting at the least. So far I've found a ton of comments on blogs and other unusuable items, almost all of which used the text that was here verbatim (meaning they likely copied it directly from Wikipedia). Find a suitable ref and the entry can go back in. But it has NOT, in fact, been here for years. At least not in the form that's being edited in today. And even if it had, it was incorrect to allow it to begin with. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Earliest diff with info about nude photo is dated May 15 of this year. The rest of the paragraph (about them meeting and the art that can no longer be found) HAS been here for a very long time but unreferenced. At one point it had a reference pointing to DeWeaver's website where no such image or corroborating text is located. All sources noted in diff either seemingly copied their text from here directly or referred to DeWeaver's website. One sourced noted in the edit summary of the diff even states that the photographer himself disputes the claim that Banksy was in such a photo. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Critics

Maybe it's just me, but how does a "critics" section featuring an unsubstantiated comment from yet another British quango has enough, if any, relevance to make it into this article? I think the bloke's credentials as an artist are rather beyond doubt, so some geezer with no art expertise or qualifications saying that "it is simple vandalism" sounds rather flippant given its lack of substance. How would you feel about adding a similar section to say Michael Crichton's article, saying the bugger kills trees to turn them into largely unreadable books?

If nobody makes any objections known here over the next few days, or better yet, improves the article by replacing this with some proper criticism (i.e., from an artistic point of view), I'll get rid of this section. I would do it now but since I refuse to use usernames some twat is bound to flag it down as vandalism and revert, hence the forewarning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.93.138 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Critics" is exactly what it says it is, and is fine, even common, on a very large percentage of Wiki articles. Just because you don't particuraly LIKE the referenced criticisms doesn't mean the section needs to be deleted. They are legit & referenced, regardless of whether you personally feel the individuals doing the talking are eligible to talk about the great Banksy. Your very tone about the subject makes you seem to be a Banksy-Fanatic who will not stand for any type of negative publicity being posted about the artist, which would make your edits VERY close to flirting with the NPOV rule. (Just for the record, I did NOT add anything to the said section, nor have I made ANY edit to the entire article. And I also believe SOME of Banksy's work is rather good art .... although some is simple vanalism also.)

I'm trying to come up with a good example which you would likely agree with, but I'm not sure I can. But maybe this .... let's say some artist snuck into a train-yard & completely repainted a brand new Amtrak locomotive with a mural depicting how internal combustion engines are destroying the environment. Next day, a million people who believe that to be true started a very nice Wiki-Page about the painting, gaining several million hits within days. And almost every single person seeing it agrees that it's a work of art.

But then, the CEO of Amtrak makes a statement about how that engine had a $20,000 paint job on it, and Amtrak wished to have ALL of their cars painted in the "normal" Amtrak colors, and it cost the company $30,000 to remove the unauthorized painting & add back the original one. So some editor started a "Criticism" section on the Wiki-Article, with the above statement from the CEO, who most likely is NOT an artist himself, & stands a good chance of being labeled as a "geezer" by some of the ones who liked the unauthorized painting.

So I ask you now, is the fact that the unauthorized painting being highly popular enough of a reason to warrant the "Criticism" section being removed from the article, simply because some of the fans of the unauthorized painting don't think that the CEO is qualified to decide how the locomotives of his company should be painted? A Wiki-Article is typically for ALL points of view, even if some people don't particuraly care for some specific section of it, or the person being referenced in that section. One more example might be if there was a completely separate article titled "Critics of Banksy", and within this article was a section called "Banksy Fans Who Disagree With These Critics & Claim Banksy's Work Is Truly Art". That section would, in effect, be serving the same purpose in that imaginary article as the one you want removed is doing in THIS article. So would you also be lobbying to have THAT section removed? I think not.

P.S. I also, like you, don't use a username. I gave it a good try years back, but then saw that there is a certain group of Wiki-People who feel it is their duty to police ALL edits made, regardless if they are actually interested in helping add to the articles, and immediately revert/delete any addition which doesn't meet with their personal approval ... whatever that may be.

And then if you try to add the content back in, you'll get threatened with banning & all that other stuff. So I simply completely quit trying to add content to Wiki & now just use it for very general reference, or when I'm bored & want to read some entertaining arguments from the Wiki-Police, about how people who try to add content to Wiki will eventually destroy it.

The sad thing about the whole deal was that almost every single article I tried to edit was a "stub", about a fairly obscure & less-popular topic. Being as I had some very much needed info on the "big picture" which all these stubs pertained to, I took it upon myself to expand these obscure stubs into true articles, with decent information about the topic. But every single time, with the sole exception of ONE, the stubs-no-longer were reverted right back to stubs .... which they still are to this day. The one exception required so much time from me, explaining, defending, & explaining again to the "reverters" (Wiki-Police) the legitimate nature of the sources I was using, I decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. If they want stubs, let them have stubs.

So I'm not that much of a fan of Wiki-Procedure. Because of that, I could care less in a way of how this Banksy article reads. But I'm an optimist, so hold out hope that Wiki will someday be "The Encyclopedia Which EVERYONE Can Edit", rather than the current model of "Everyone, As Long As Certain People Approve Of Your Edits". Because of that, I just have to agree with the fat that the "Critics" section in this article is legit & justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Blek the Rat

This is the single biggest problem of Wikiepdia. Popularity and the commonest held viewpoint vs actuality. It should be noted that Blek the Rat was even the second discussion point raised on this topic on the same issue. Undue providence of Banksy's 'apparent' creative genius without acknowledging that this has all been done before but without the media hype. This article is almost like a collective denial of history.

A guy goes around stencilling on walls and this is new? Whereas Blek the Rat had done most of it before in Paris in the 1960s. The media hype it up, and they become the object d'art. It's wrong and if this was serious academically created work, it would reflect this critique.

Take the lede:

Observers have noted that his style is similar to Blek le Rat, who began to work with stencils in 1981 in Paris and members of the anarcho-punk band Crass who maintained a graffiti stencil campaign on the London Tube System in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

That's all POV. So downplayed and just the barest of nods. Which "observers"? People don't want to admit the truth that this guy is neither original or amazing. The only thing that makes Banksy stand out is due to media attention.

And "similar"? Shouldn't that be "almost alike" or in "distinguishable"? I mean taking a snapshot of Blek the Rat's work would strongly suggest blatant plagiarism.

This article suffers from the same malaise that affects all artists of popularism. Take Elvis, he represents the transition from Afro-American harmonies to the mainstream of white America. But is that acknowledged, of course not. Elvis was the king who "created" the whole rock'n roll phenomenon. It's like people just don't want to admit that there is a duality between what is new to them, BUT is not new to their idols. Banksy is just another example. He didn't even invent this genre, but he is now the recognised tour de force of the art because his fans claim the ownership for him. Brings to mind that there is nothing new under the sun. Only people's willingness to ignore, forget or downplay.

You make some very valid points; I will only retort what you view as "commonest viewpoint" is generally those who put in the work vs. those who do not. WP is centered around two things: activity, and verifiable references. What Banksy has going for him vs Blek is the age he is doing his thing; there are more news articles and books to reference in Banksy's case. It's a shame, but an imperfection which can be remedied by more scholarly research.
Does the Blek article contain all available references to his work? Can it be fleshed out further? And most importantly, are you willing to put in the work to expand the article? Not seeking to be inflammatory, but I often find what is bemoaned in talk sections of WP could easily be remedied by the author making updates themselves to a particular article. For instance, I whole-heartedly agree re:the POV lede. Why not tag it, or remedy it?--Chimino (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I've since made significant changes to the Blek le Rat article. Check it out. Perhaps in the future, instead of writing long diatribes as to why WP sucks, you can utilize that energy to change it (not that I expect a response from you of any kind).--Chimino (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm replying to 109.156.28.110 here, but I've added the "observers" references as you wanted. I can't really tell if you're a fan of Blek le Rat out to diminish the work of Banksy by claiming he is unoriginal or whether you inherently dislike this kind of art in general, including Blek le Rat, but have a particular dislike for Banksy because he appears to be its most prominent representative in the media? From the tone of your rant it just seems as though you want the article to read like "Meh, Banksy's bollocks because it's all been done before".92.25.113.44 (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Banksy does not sell photos of street graffiti directly himself...

This is superfluous since most artists do not set the art themselves. That is why they employ an agent. The agent often insists on exclusivity.

QuentinUK (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Banksy graffiti removal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Banksy graffiti removal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

identity

robin banks according to this article 62.167.139.143 (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added your source to the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalised!!

I find this statement HILARIOUS:

In December 2008, The Little Diver, a Banksy image of a diver in a duffle coat in Melbourne Australia was vandalised. The image was protected by a sheet of clear perspex, however silver paint was poured behind the protective sheet and later tagged with the words "Banksy woz ere".

Isn't that ridiculously hypocritical? If you're going to take the position (as this article appears to) that Banksy is an artist because he says he is, despite the fact that they are also vandalism, wouldn't you need to word it more like:

In December 2008, an unknown street artist controversially enhanced The Little Diver, a Banksy image of a diver in a duffle coat in Melbourne Australia. The original image had been protected by a sheet of clear perspex. The anonymous artist poured silver paint behind the protective sheet and added the words "Banksy woz ere."

I just can't understand why the only thing that can be vandalized is "street art." I'm not saying Banksy's not an artist, but rather that if he's NOT a vandal, then neither is whoever paints over his stuff. That's only fair.75.17.112.84 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the word "vandalised" was a bit inflammatory, and something more neutral such as "covered" would be more appropriate. In the future, feel free to edit it yourself and post an explanation in discussion as to the reason for editing if need be. Again, changing something you disagree with is preferable to waiting for someone else to do it.--Chimino (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
As per above discussion, the cited news article says the work was 'destroyed', which seems a more neutral description. Seeing as noone has changed the wording yet, I've taken it upon myself to do so...Sionk (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I just want to go on record and say that this is easily the most accurate thing on wikipedia 203.19.128.226 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Easton Cowboys and Cowgirls

Is it notable that Banksy "lent his support" to a fundraising project of theirs?[1] -- Trevj (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As there's apparently no objection to this, I'm including it. -- Trevj (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Identity quote

The quote "a 28 year old male who showed up wearing jeans and a t-shirt with a silver tooth, silver chain, and one silver earring." in the Identity section does not come from the cited source, ttp://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,999712,00.html. Also, "28 year old male" ought be hyphenated "28-year-old male", which is what made me notice the problem.Scientific29 (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change it...--Chimino (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It Was An Idea At First.

While watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" it has been implied that Banksy was not an individual but a group. Other members seemed making more contribution than this so called incognito leader. Then I saw this. Sorry I'm not well versed on the subjects of Banksy and reliable sources, so I have to leave this to you.--ZaferXYZ (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Info on most current sale of Banksy original?

Does anyone know much the most recent (2012) Banksy piece was sold for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshgilbert13 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Official website"

I'm not sure how legitimate the "official website" is, as it copies most of its text directly from Wikipedia. I would think that an official website would have original content. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was the 'official' site. SkyMachine (++) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this one http://www.banksy.co.uk/ seems to be seen as the authoritative source of what is, and is not, Banksy. Sionk (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Critic Section - Madonna should be MAN!

If you take the time to read the quotes original reference page, it should be MAN. Quit reverting my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.188.103 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Done thanks.Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Wood Green mural

Someone with more interest in the subject might want to add something relating to this report: Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US auction. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

His Arrest today should be mentioned

London, England — The England-based graffiti artist, political activist, film director, and painter that for years has gone by the pseudonymous name of Banksy, was arrested early this morning by police in London. After hours of questioning and a raid of his London art studio, his true name and identity have finally been revealed.

London Police say Banksy’s real name is Paul William Horner, a 39-year old male born in Bristol, England. The BBC has also confirmed this information with his PR agent Jo Brooks and the website that acts as a handling service on behalf of the artist, Pest Control. [2]

Yeah, right, the same website that tells us the name of the new Pope has been revealed three weeks early :) Sionk (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he has... it's on the internet. It's gotta be true71.209.213.183 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this reference? http://www.prlog.org/12085513-banksy-arrested-in-london-identity-revealed.html

This is really happening right now. Save Banksy!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.213.183 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that someone issued a hoax press release to prlog.com Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes my bad, I added it. PRlog is a free Press Release service - not reliable at all. The email from the PR links to a humour website. Fake, fake, fake. NickCochrane (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

A recent press release indicates that Banksy has been arrested and identified as Paul William Horner, a 39 year old Bristol, England native.

http://superofficialnews.com/banksy-arrested-in-london-identity-revealed/

The City of London Police say Banksy’s real name is Paul William Horner, a 39-year old male born in Bristol, England. The BBC has also confirmed this information with his PR agent Jo Brooks and the website that acts as a handling service on behalf of the artist, Pest Control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.66.137.125 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

99.133.161.88 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a hoax press release. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013

http://superofficialnews.com/banksy-arrested-in-london-identity-revealed/

He's been captured

Andrewliu33 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: see previous section --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

ashcombe

the school is called and it is good. it is in dorking surry England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.25.227 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Great new info to add to the very small section of 2012

I added some great info for the "2012" section but it was removed? do any other users that have knowledge of Banksy & Street Art find this info should be re added? edit is HERE It was backed up by many credible links as you can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah1971 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed a small part of your addition because it didn't seem entirely relevant..."Graffiti Artist Darren Cullen also went on record in 2012 saying "Banksy inspires other artists & due to Banksy graffiti is now seen as art & not vandalism" Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:WEIGHT I don't think we should mention Darren Cullen here at all. It should be about Banksy, not other artists, unless they have worked with him. I've searched for sources about Cullen and Banksy and couldn't find anything better than the BBC article already in the article. It might belong in 2012 Olympics (or more probably a sub-article of that) but not here. SmartSE (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes your right it should be on the Olympics 2012 page. Good call :) Sarah1971 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing Info On Banksy

The Wikipedia article makes no mention of WHY Banksy chooses to stay anonymous.


Also there is no mention as to how he is able to do his artwork and never get caught, especially being such a prolific graffiti artist. This leads me to believe "Banksy" is probably a collective of numerous artists. It is unlikely for "Banksy" to be as active as long as "he" is and never have been arrested or have his identity revealed. Rizzerd (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Things are added to Wikipedia which are verifiable and come from credible sources. Wikipedia does not speculate, however, if there are reputable sources offering published opinions or facts about BANSKY's motives, operations, etc. then those may be added to this entry. Coinmanj (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Typically, people chose to remain anonymous to keep their identity a secret... Presumably, this is the reason Banksy is doing it. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The first mural by Banksy was The Mild Mild West painted on a wall of a former solicitor's practice operating in Stokes Croft Avenue, Bristol, England. The idea was that of a solicitor who had left the practice and objected to the use of advertising for a solicitor who was no longer allowed to practice. The mural was completed a few weeks later in about 1997. The solicitor, David Harris, sought out someone who would paint over the advertising in daylight hours dressed in painters' attire so as not to attract attention. After this, Banksy adopted this modus to find sites and paint murals in daylight in a manner which would avoid criminal prosecution. It is likely tthat Banksy remains anonymous because there is no time limitation on prosecutions for criminal damage. Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your missing my point - the questions is what is the reason WHY he/they choose to remain anonymous after all these years?
You're missing my answer. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You're still missing my point, I'll rephrase it: why is Banksy choosing to keep his/their identity a secret after all these years? Rizzerd (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Better. Fortunately, nobody knows why Banksy has chose to maintain his anonymity this long, if we did, he wouldn't be anonymous anymore. As I mentioned above, however, the typical reason for remaining anonymous is to keep your identity secret, in this case likely to avoid any criminal litigation as a result of his work. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I watched his film Exit Through the Gift Shop for the first time last night, at one point Banksy says, quote, "I always avoided cameras cause what I do is in a bit of a legal gray area". Seems to suggest that indeed, he's prefers to stay anonymous for legal reasons. — MusikAnimal talk 17:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just as a reminder, Banksy is a living person and this article therefore falls under WP:BLPSOURCES, meaning we cannot use tabloid journalism for anything even slightly contentious. This would include speculation about his "real name". As this is to protect the rights of the subject I will be utterly humourless and intolerant to any attempts to add or restore anything dubious. --John (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not what you did, given that you keep the speculations, yet none of the sources have any proof of his identity. The question isn't about The Daily Mail, rather that you removed the source, the bulk of the article become unsourced. There are only two choices, either you remove the whole section, or you keep the source. What you have done is unreasonable. Hzh (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the material is sourced to the BBC site. If there is anything on the article which is no longer sourced and can only be sourced to unreliable sources, it needs to go. What are you thinking of? --John (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
No, the BBC only asserts that his name is Robert Banks, most of the rest came from Daily Mail. If you want to remove the source, then you would have to also remove the bulk of the section. As I already said, there are conflicting claims, for the BBC to make such an assertion would suggest that BBC itself is a unreliable source, certainly as far as this claim is concerned. There is really no reason to keep the BBC claim if you want to remove The Daily Mail one, so the only recourse is to delete the whole section. Hzh (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually be against removing the entire section, seeing as it basically talks about unreliable speculations, albeit some are reported in usually-reliable sources like the BBC. --John (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Then do so. Keeping the BBC one and deleting the Daily Mail gives unwarranted credence to one specific speculation. I would suggest that you read what is in the sources and what's written on the page, making an assessment about the validity of the content, rather than make a blanket judgement. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought I already had, but the more I think of this matter the more I think we should refrain from mentioning rumours and speculation about his "real name". I shall remove the entire section. Thanks for your help. --John (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Banksy's real name revealed

Banksy has now been arrested in London, and his real name has been revealed. As of this, under born "Real name unkown" should be changed to "Paul Horner".

Source: National Report Djomes (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done -- The article was protected so as to stop false information like this being included. Please see discussion directly above this for reasons. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Djomes: This is a hoax. — MusikAnimal talk 20:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gender of Banksy

In a recent article (http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/11/why-banksy-is-probably-a-woman/382202/), it was argued that Banksy is a woman. Whether this is true or not, I don't think anyone can say. On the flip side of this, is there any concrete proof that Banksy is a man? It seems as if this article should not be using gender-specific pronouns as long as this is unknown. --Edward E X (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but all the reliable sources we cite, some direct quotes, seem to refer to Banksy as male. Writing with gender-neutral language about a real person is not particularly easy either, so we're probably best off sticking with what we have. — MusikAnimal talk 23:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I created a new topic for this before noticing this post, here was my post: I was just reading http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/11/why-banksy-is-probably-a-woman/382202/ and while I am unconvinced of the authors claim, it did make me realize that there is no proof anywhere about Banksy's identity so we shouldn't refer to them as a "he". Perhaps we could use gender neutral words? ☠  Travis McCrea (T)(C) 05:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality/ Single Identity

What is basis for assuming that "Banksy" is English or is even a single individual? This whole matter of identity is badly in neeed of discussion in the article. As it stands the piece just blithely ignores the whole question (which is perfectly legitimate, could be done without "tabloid" sources and is something I'm sure most readers want discussed), which is totally absurd. I find the justifications offered here unconvincing and rather high-handed, bordering on authoritarian.68.178.50.46 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If when you say "without 'tabloid' sources" you mean "without press or published sources because we can just write it ourselves", then no, that would be original research. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been puzzled for some time that the article says he is English and from Bristol. How can that possibly have been verified if the identity has not been established? Peteinterpol (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
My post of 01:40, 8 November 2014 was made with reference to "John's" comment on use of "tabloid" sources in the "Sourcing" section. "McGeddon" seems to have missed my point, which was not that "we can just write it ourselves" but that there should be "reliable" published sources available which have gone into this issue. Again, a high-handed (and rather patronising) tone, a "circle-the-wagons" mentality, and a capriciousness with regard to which sources are deemed reliable and even which parts of a cited source. The BBC article which is linked to in order to establish "Banksy"'s background in Bristol also provides what is allegedly his name. Did the BBC issue a retraction at some point? Or perhaps these "utterly humorless and intolerant" gatekeepers are under the impression that "Banksy" is a pseudonym of Lord Voldemort.68.178.50.46 (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
So looking at these two sections (on gender and identity), the article states that Banksy is male, English and from Bristol. Do we have verifiable citations that meet the usual Wikipedia standards for such claims? I feel uncomfortable that this page seems to want to have its cake and eat it too; i.e. we go along with the idea that the identity is completely unknown and we can't include unverifiable speculations on that, but then include questionable "facts" that can't be verified without such a proven identity. How do we know he is from Bristol unless someone has seen his birth certificate (thus revealing his name!) and proof that it belongs to the artist who paints the murals? Peteinterpol (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Umm, because it's not about what you can prove. It's about what the source says. If a reliable source says it, it can go in.2601:4:1500:C90:39F6:9EDD:F95E:9752 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, understood. So to be clear, the BBC is generally regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The BBC says that Banksy "is believed to be former public schoolboy Robin Gunningham": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24464663. So does that mean we can add a statement on the Banksy page saying that "Banksy is believed to be former public schoolboy Robin Gunningham"?, and cite this BBC page? Peteinterpol (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Right,"Peteinterpol". Page also asssumes subject is a particular individual and not a group sharing stencils and spray cans. Gatekeepers seem to have bought into "Banksy"'s game in the name of august "Wikipedia standards" that are not applied in other cases (e.g."Satoshi Nakamoto") rather than taken a position overviewing the whole situation. This name game has been going on, what, 15, 20 years? I think it's high time the game itself be discussed in detail rather than, in effect, having Wikipedia carry water for the creator(s) of some the most celebrated, recognizable, and marketable works of art in the contemporary world.68.178.50.46 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of content

An anonymous IP user 23.27.252.57 yesterday without any explanation reverted content that had two supporting citations from reliable sources (BBC and Daily Telegraph). As another user states on this talk page:

"Umm, because it's not about what you can prove. It's about what the source says. If a reliable source says it, it can go in.2601:4:1500:C90:39F6:9EDD:F95E:9752"

The two sources state that it is believed that Banksy is Robin Gunningham, not that it has been proven that he is. That is what is stated in the text that was reverted yesterday.

If the reverted content should not be there, please let's do so after a discussion on the Talk page rather than reverting it anonymously without explanation. Peteinterpol (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gaza video

@Grayfell: Egypt role isn't being hammered but your edit summary exactly proves the point made by the RS. Israel doesn't block Gaza from all 4 sides but rather 3. 1 side is blocked by Egypt. Banksy doesn't mention it. The source says it, not me. That is the criticism! I really can't see on what ground you leave it out! Ashtul (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of the sources you used were lengthy articles discussing the entire video, with only a single paragraph in each mentioning the factual inaccuracies. So is this about an encyclopedic explanation of a single event in a prolific artist's multi-decade career, or is this about finding parts of a few regional sources that prop up a political viewpoint? Sources agree that the video is tongue-in-cheek, since it is presented as a travel video to an area that the vast majority of people viewing would be barred from visiting. Using those two minor sources to imply that "criticism has arisen" is (in addition to being a textbook example of WP:WEASEL words, now that I think about it) completely undue weight. Why would an artist's satirical video about his own works be compelled to show images of Hamas or rockets? The YNetNews source explains this (in a single sentence) as a way to provide context, but mentioning it here only makes sense if you are trying to inject a political viewpoint into the article. Trying to imply-without-saying that Gaza is just as much Egypt's fault as Israel's is way, way, waaaaay outside the scope of the article. Even according to the sources, its not a significant part of the video. I've retained a single sentence mention of the fact that the Rafah Crossing is closed. That is the limit of what is appropriate given the current sources that have been presented. Wikilink to the appropriate articles and let the facts speak for themselves, otherwise it's just POV pushing. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Should I introduce another 10 sources who said the same? I wrote the section with WP:DUE in mind and mentioned the criticism. As per 'why drag Egypt?', well, Egypt is the one closing the 4th side border not to mention - he crawled through an tunnel from Egypt. This isn't WP:BLP but merely saying his video is WP:BIASED and was criticized.
More articles that mentions Egyptian border [3], [4]. It is notable!!
You know those are the same source, right? Reuters is a news agency, that is something you should be aware of for future editing. Anyway, that news story barely mentions Egypt at all, and so does this article, so what is the problem? That article also mentions nothing about Egypt being part of any controversy or criticism. Using that source to support such claims would be WP:OR and agenda pushing. Grayfell (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Grayfell: They barely mention the cement either. Do you read hebrew? Do you want me to quote you those? There is an RS that mentions criticism about Egypt. We both know it is also true (4th border etc'). I can't see on what ground you oppose its inclusion. Ashtul (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't both know that it's true, and what you or I believe to be "true" is irrelevant. This is about neutrality and verifiability. What changes are you proposing? You've produced several sources, none of which suggest that the factual errors/ambiguities/exaggerations in the video's narration are important for understanding Banksy's work. Just as important, none of them have explained who is doing the supposed criticism. We mention that some of the details are wrong and that Egypt's border is closed. This seems more than sufficient to me. This is not an article about the video, this is an overview of the artist. If you can find reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss that there is a controversy, and the secondary sources unambiguously explain who objects to the statements, then we can consider it. Even then an op-ed in a local paper isn't going to merit inclusion unless it meets WP:DUE. If someone who is independently notable lodges a complaint, or releases a counter-video, or in some way does something meaningful besides complain, then it might be due. If there is secondary coverage of the complaints, then we can figure something out. Otherwise forget it. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Grayfell: I'm a big fan of 'this isn't a fact but an opinion' but Gaza sharing a 4th border is actually an indisputable fact on any level (If you disagree it will be a very interesting, philosophical conversation). Thus state 3 land borders and 1 sea border is false, and an RS wrote about it. I made sure the part is wp:due by writing in more length about the content of the video before. Ashtul (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Making this about Gaza's border with Egypt is distorting the issue, and is completely misrepresenting my argument: the video never mentions Israel or Egypt. The video is not about that, it's about Gaza. Your edits are trying to make it about something else. You haven't produced a source that meaningfully describes any controversy, or any person or defined group who is contesting Banksy's statements. This is still a BLP and you need to provide much, much better sources. Factual inaccuracies are not the same as a controversy. The inaccuracies are mentioned and given due weight. Discussing Egypt's role in Gaza is absurdly outside of the scope of this article, and appears to be trying to turn the section into a WP:COATRACK. This isn't the place for that. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Identity

I find it, incredible that everyone assumes Banksy is a man. We have no proof whatsoever the gender of this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.194.120 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no discussion in this article of his actual identity. It has been suggested in the media that he is called Robin Gunningham or that his surname is Banks. Should this be referred to in the article, supported by reliable citations? Peteinterpol (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a section discussing his decision to stay anonymous and speculation about his identity, I read somewhere that Robin Banks was mostly likely a play on 'robbing banks' but it would be possible to locate reliable sources for both Banks and Gunningham GallaghersGreek (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The section on identity was removed by on May 4. Although there might be some debatable issues with sourcing, I think not having a discussion of decision to remain anonymous, identity, or of media speculations concerning it opens a huge hole in the article. The fact of Banksy's anonymity, I think it is fair to say, is responsible for substantial portion of his mystique and notoriety. Just blanking the "Identity" section makes the article look incomplete. As I understand it, BLP means we have to be careful, not that we must give up. See Satoshi Nakamoto for an example of Wikipedia discussion of identity speculations for a notable but private individual. Erudy (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
First time trying to edit a Wikipedia article and I can't figure out how. Anyways, Banksy's name has now been revealed. His name is Paul Horner http://nationalreport.net/banksy-arrested-identity-revealed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viral In Nature (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
National Report is a satire website, not reliable news agency. And Paul Horner is a National Report's running joke. --WTM (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
None of the major news agencies are reporting anything on the "Paul Horner" story, most likely it is a hoax. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If "Robin Banks" is just a play on "robbing banks",
then is "Robin Gunningham" just a play on "robbing, gun in hand"?
The "Paul Horner" hoax looks like it is almost big enough to mention (as a hoax)
Aberdeen01 (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html. Unlike the Paul Horner nonsense or the rather silly CityLab piece (which really shouldn't be cited as an authority since, if you read it, it's pure speculation), this piece is the result of quite an extensive investigation and interviews and makes quite a compelling, evidence-based case for the identity of Banksy as Robin Gunningham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathandore (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When editing Line 5 of the info box on this page, the following appears: "Real name: unknown -- Do not add without clear confirmation, read the article for past speculations on his name." And in fact, the last reversion of an edit was for someone falling foul of this guidance. But then on checking the article, I cannot find reference to these "past speculations". A tiny section on identity that covers the Paul Horner hoax, but nothing on the many and reliably reported speculations (e.g. Robin Gunningha, Robin Banks). Have they been edited out? Do they need to be put back in (with reliable sources)? If not then surely this note needs removing? Peteinterpol (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The Mail on Sunday investigation has been referenced by The Telegraph (in the form of "evidence from [the Daily Mail] suggests") and The Guardian (in the form of "the Mail on Sunday identified"). The BBC stated that he is "believed to be" Gunningham without attribution and can be reasonably presumed to refer to the Mail's belief. The Mail article is somewhat ambiguous, claiming either that they have "come as close as anyone possibly can to revealing his identity" and that they have actually identified Gunningham as Banksy.
Since the wording of the Mail seems hesitant, and other sources claim at most a suggestion, this may still not yet be "clear confirmation" until either a reliable source states his identity definitively, or Banksy himself confirms this. However, I'm not sure what the consensus on "clear confirmation" is, or whether we might be able to construe that the Mail claims to have definitively identified him. More recent articles/investigations could help if they exist. 93 17:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As this article concerns a living person we cannot report speculation, especially when it is sourced to a tabloid. --John (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a desperation to remove the sourced content that has been in place a while. Please can we have a proper discussion on here first, to see if we can achieve consensus about the changes? Peteinterpol (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy to discuss. Meantime policy dictates that we leave the content off the article. --John (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not think this reversion is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Agreed, tabloids such as the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are not generally regarded as reliable sources of information on their own. But the reverted content relied on four reliable sources (Telegraph, Guardian, Times and BBC). Of these, two reported the Mail allegations as if they accepted their truth:
Telegraph: "But a trail of evidence uncovered by the Mail on Sunday suggests that the truth about his identity may finally have been unearthed."
Guardian: "It's thought he is Robin Gunningham, who was born on 28 July 1973 in Bristol to Peter Gunningham and Pamela Ann Dawkin-Jones and attended Bristol Cathedral school."
And the other two, the BBC and the Times, don't mention the Mail at all, but both us the phrase "is believed to be....Robin Gunningham".
Two points: (1) If a reliable source reports content from a tabloid that it seems to believe is true, surely it is legitimate to say, as this article did, that "Reliable sources report that he is believed to be Robin Gunningham". And (2), if the BBC and the Times say he "is believed to be Robin Gunningham" without reference to any tabloid, surely we accept their statement that this is what is believed?
On that basis the reverted content should be restored. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

Change "Year of Birth" for 1976. According to a movie made by Banksy in 2014, showed up on Webby's Person of the Year Award, it said that he has 38 years. [1] This video proves that they are saying he has 38 years old by 2014. I was warned thar this video is unconstructive, but it is, very. Viviane CohenVivianecohen123 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grI61qRP0A4

Banksy's gender

I find the recent edit to change all references to Banksy's gender (e.g. 'his' to 'their') a bit ludicrous. The identity is not proven, but the official Banksy website uses male pronouns when referring to the artist (http://www.banksy.co.uk/), there are citations on this page to Bristol people who knew 'him' early on, and when Bristol Museum co-operated with the artist over an exhibition they referred to the artist they dealt with as a male. It beggars belief that being male is all an elaborate hoax, even from Banksy. There is no reliable evidence to challenge the virtually universal acceptance that Banksy is male. Can common sense prevail and we revert to male references in this article? Peteinterpol (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a revert in this case. I'm a fan of the singular they and gender inclusivity, but since his own website uses male pronouns, this seems straightforward. My understanding of policy (and basic courtesy) is to refer to a person by their pronoun of choice, and in this case, that means male. Banksy may possibly be a woman, or possibly multiple people, but the info available suggests using male pronouns. Grayfell (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Identity section needs rewriting (nonsensical)

a commonly cited 2008 Mail on Sunday investigation of several former schoolmates and associates that he is believed to be a former pupil at the public Bristol Cathedral School

This sentence needs a rewrite as it doesn't actually make grammatical sense.

And how can the Mail on Sunday have conducted an investigation "several former schoolmates and associates" if they haven't actually identified him? Should there be an "alleged", or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.249.115 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced intro material.

I have restored well-sourced material removed by one user. That change should be discussed by editors rather than being unilaterally removed. Please can we have a conversation here before further removal? Thanks. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Er, I've just given my opinion above :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Identity

@Peteinterpol: Do we really need this claim right up front in the lead? I don't mind it being listed in the body (it's cited to the Independent), but at best it can only be reliably sourced opinions. I personally think it's more likely that Banksy is a loosely defined team. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

See below - I think this is a change that needs discussion before being made. I will add my comments, and hope others will do so too, before any further unilateral changes are made about a part of the article that several people have contributed to. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyone can be bold provided they also discuss. Anyhow, the relevant bit of the MOS here suggests, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." Given the identity claim is cited to two relatively recent news reports, it would seem inappropriate to put in the lead. By all means put it down in the body (where it still is), but I don't think it belongs up-front. To give another example of a famous yet anonymous person, consider Jack the Ripper - the lead says his identity was never conclusively proven (which indeed remains the case for Banksy) - indeed, there is even a spin-off article Jack the Ripper suspects - but it does not list potential targets until someway down the article. A similar pattern can be seen for The Residents; again, nothing about suspected identities until some way down the article. So per the MOS and precedents in existing articles, I think we should follow suit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think there is a big difference between this case and that of Jack the Ripper. After 130 years nobody knows the identity of the latter despite massive levels of research. There are many potential candidates still in the frame. With Banksy there is only one serious candidate, Gunningham, as indicated by the authors of the most recent investigation cited. Before they even started, they found that everybody "knows" that Banksy is Gunningham. Then their study found further evidence to support this. It is disingenuous of this article to suggest that there is any real doubt about this and to bury such a widely accepted view deep in the article. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point I was getting at. I'm not arguing whether the facts are reliable / accurate or not, but rather is the information important enough for the lead? I don't think it is. For me, the artwork and the social commentary it raises are the most important thing, who actually "did the deed" is a minor sideshow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
IMO This is an information-article on the topic of Banksy, not an item of activism, so while what might be most important for you is the artwork and social commentary, that is not, in my view, the point of an entry in an encyclopaedia. PaulGEllis (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) section can someone please change " In early March 2011, Banksy responded to the Oscars with an artwork in Weston, UK, of a little girl holding the Oscar and pouting. " so it says Weston-super-Mare? Thanks. (And it specifies WSM in the source http://swns.com/news/banksy-pays-tribute-to-oscar-dropping-child-with-new-artwork-17454/ "The stencil, discovered on the side of a garage in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, depicts a young girl pouting and clinging on to the famous golden trophy.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.162.140 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made the edit as requested but you could have done this yourself.— Rod talk 14:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why male pronouns?

If Banksy is unknown and some have speculated Banksy is a woman (as stated in the article) why use male pronouns to describe Banksy? The Robin Cunningham identity (Cunningham is male) has not been confirmed. Could we possibly switch the male pronouns in the article to the singular "they" or "him or her"? JaneSwifty (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No. If the gender of a person is unknown, it is common practice to refer to them in male pronouns until such time as they gender can be confirmed. This is precisely to avoid repeated us of phrases such as "his or hers", and "they". --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Is that established Wikipedia practice? I don't think it makes sense. If gender is unknown, settling on either male or female pronouns only is likely to confuse people.2601:46:C801:5300:59C8:9568:86C1:E5C5 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say the same "How do we know it is a 'he'?". All references to his gender should be changed until this is cleared up, Yes, "it was it is common practice to refer to them in male pronouns" ...in the last century.

Bethlehem hotel

According to Time, he opened a hotel in Bethlehem near the wall recently. This should be added.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Identity

'Bansky climbed into the penguin enclosure and painted "We're bored of fish" '

Bored of (instead of bored with) is an American expression. Has nobody commented on this?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very common in British English. 86.153.228.211 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Banksy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

"Los Angeles Time." should be "Los Angeles Times." 2605:E000:9152:8F00:BD05:4658:7E8D:8C29 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Done - thanks for pointing it out. TSP (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banksy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banksy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 23 July 2018

Please add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Identity" section:

Banksy lived in the Easton area of Bristol for ten years and many of his artworks are visible there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.88.70 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal life

Banksy is believed to have been born in Yate, twelve miles from Bristol.[1][2] He began as an artist at the age of 14. He was expelled from school and served time in prison for petty crime.[3][4] His real name is believed to be Robin Gunningham. Gunningham, born on 28 July 1973, is a graffiti artist from Bristol and is out of touch with his family.[2][5]. Banksy lived in a house in Easton, Bristol, around which much of his work can still be seen, for ten years around the late 1990s.[5][6][7]

In 1994 Banksy checked into a New York hotel using the name "Robin".[8] Banksy moved to London around 2000, as did Robin Gunningham.[9] In 2016, lawyers acting for Banksy, commenting on a scientific study identifying him as Gunningham, did not suggest that the paper's conclusions were in any way flawed.[10] In June 2017 actor Goldie referred to Banksy by name as "Rob".[11]

---

Then continue with the "Career" section to the end. In the "Identity" section, change the second sentence of the second paragraph to read:

Guardian journalist Simon Hattenstone has described Banksy in 2003 as "white, 28, scruffy casual – jeans, T-shirt, a silver tooth, silver chain and silver earring. He looks like a cross between Jimmy Nail and Mike Skinner of the Streets".[3]

 Not done: No reason offered for removing 3/4ths of the article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We're not removing 75% of the article, we're adding a new section "Personal life" between the lead and the "Career" section. 92.24.108.255 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lonely Planet (May 2013). Great Britain:Southwest England (10th edition) (PDF). p. 282.
  2. ^ a b Adams, Tim (14 June 2009). "Banksy:The graffitist goes straight". The Observer. London.
  3. ^ a b Hattenstone, Simon (17 July 2003). "Something to spray". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 29 January 2018.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference tel_banksy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Hines, Nico (11 March 2016). "The Secret Life of the Real Banksy, Robin Gunningham". Retrieved 24 July 2018.
  6. ^ The Daily Telegraph, Property section, London, 7 July 2018, page 5.
  7. ^ ABC News (7 March 2016). "Banksy:Map profiling backs theory that graffiti artist is Robin Gunningham". Retrieved 24 July 2018.
  8. ^ Francis, Nick (4 October 2012). "I said to Banksy, 'Don't reveal yourself, you're the Robin Hood dude'". The Sun. London.
  9. ^ The Economist (3 March 2016). "Banksy has been tagged, thanks to mathematics". Retrieved 24 July 2018.
  10. ^ Webb, Jonathan (3 March 2016). "Banksy lawyers delayed geographical profiling study". Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  11. ^ BBC News (23 June 2017). "Did Goldie just reveal who Banksy is?". Retrieved 24 July 2018.

Identity of banksy

Is this confidential information or can we put in article? 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:BCD0:EABA:3830:9D0 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Banksy is a Chinese guy called Jeremy Shum 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:BCD0:EABA:3830:9D0 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

in the news

--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal pronoun usage

Throughout the article, Banksy is referred to using the pronouns "he" and "them:"

  • "His satirical street art and..."
  • "Banksy depicted an angel wearing a bullet-proof vest holding a skull. They also wrote a note on their website..."

I can see an argument for either form: Banksy's true identity is not definitely known and so his or her gender is not necessarily known either. However, it also seems that Banksy's identity is more of an open secret now and the use of the gendered pronoun might be justified.

Additionally, although it is becoming common usage I still dislike the use of "they" as a singular, non-gendered pronoun in English. Is there an official stance on this usage on Wikipedia?

In the interests of consistency, I think a choice of pronouns for Banksy should be made and followed on this article.

Scolby (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The use of "they" as a singular, non-gendered pronoun isn't exactly new: E. Nesbit used it extensively in her books for children before the first world war. If it was good enough for her ..... Thomas Peardew (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Balloon Girl shredding" section

Shouldn't at least some of the content in the "Balloon Girl shredding" section be moved to the Balloon Girl article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved? No. Copied as relevant, perhhaps. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But isn't the content more about the artwork than the artist? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"political activist" citation needed

--2A02:C7F:725A:8000:9D73:2DF4:6B83:B978 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

It would make more sense to describe him as United Kingdom-based in the introduction. Or perhaps London-based. England-based doesn't really mean anything in this context.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubergoldfish (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

According to Artnet, Banksy was born circa 1974. Artnet is a WP:RELIABLESOURCE, so any rationale for not including this bit of information is wrong. http://www.artnet.com/artists/banksy/ 108.17.18.29 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: That source actually says "it is thought that Banksy was born in Bristol, United Kingdom, c. 1974". They don't specify any sources or say who in fact thinks that, so I'm not comfortable adding that to the article. NiciVampireHeart 19:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@NiciVampireHeart: What the crap? ARTNET IS THE SOURCE BEING CITED! What the heck kind of argument is the source "do[esn]'t specify any sources or say who in fact thinks that?" Artnet is the source!!!!!!! INVALID RATIONALE!!! 108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
You want the article to say "Banksy (born circa 1974)<ref>http://www.artnet.com/artists/banksy/</ref> is a..." The issue is that that's not what the source says. The source says "it is thought that Banksy was born in [...] c. 1974". It doesn't attribute this thinking to anyone in particular, or supply a source for this thinking. It's speculation, and is therefore not a source that can be used in the article.
As a side note, you can tone down the outrage and ALLCAPS, it doesn't help the discussion in any way. NiciVampireHeart 22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The guardian has reported that Bradlley Chapma, who went by the tag ozone, was 21 at the time of his death.

IN the section 2006 2007 it gives the age of Bradley Chapman at the time of his death as 19. To quote text from the article "The tribute was for 19-year-old British graffiti artist Ozone..." The guardian article that it links to reports his age as 21 at the itme of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyxyzyz (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Banksy is Robert del Naja

I think it's basically public knowledge by now that Banksy is Robert del Naja. --Candy bling1 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

After I saw the painting on TV yesterday with all the primates sitting in the House of Commons, I do not think so unless someone can prove a colourblind person can do that. I have the feeling that Banksy is of Russian/Soviet origin and has a distinguished career in another field, probably science. Some of the 'humour', mentality, and the way this is all done, without needing to profiting financially much points to what the Russians call 'Russian soul'. That is my 2 cents. 2001:8003:A02F:F400:ED2B:5580:5607:EF7D (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is Wodiczko listed ?

Is there any particular reason why Krzysztof Wodiczko gets a link in "See Also" ? I have nothing against his work but I can think of ten artists more relevant to Banksy, with an arguably better reason to be listed. It seems that Wodiczko's name is listed only to give him better ranking in searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:1D7:3:4D06:3221:C1C5:85F9 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the article from that section. Even a cursory search reveals very little connection (read: none) between the two. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Creation of Kissing Coppers page

Please change this

A small number of Banksy's works can be seen in the movie Children of Men, including a stenciled image of two policemen kissing and another stencil of a child looking down a shop.[66]

to

A small number of Banksy's works can be seen in the movie Children of Men, including a stenciled image of two policemen kissing called "Kissing Coppers" and another stencil of a child looking down a shop.[66]

[1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hart1300caleigh (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Mettler, Margaret L. "Graffiti Museum: A First Amendment Argument for Protecting Uncommissioned Art on Private Property." Mich. L. Rev. 111 (2012): 249.
  2. ^ Parry, Nigel. "British Graffiti Artist, Banksy, Hacks the Wall." Thresholds, no. 32 (2006): 90-91. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43876305.
  3. ^ Topping, Alexandra. “Brighton kisses goodbye to Banksy's kissing coppers.” The Guardian, April 21, 2011.
 Not done: Draft:Kissing Coppers was declined. If the draft gets accepted and moved to article space, please re-open this request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no". Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 03:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the name

There has been some speculation about who Banksy is, I do not really care, he wishes to remain anonymous which is something I respect. But this is Wikipedia so I will add something that both respects his anonimity but may still shed some light on the origin of his name. His early "works" were signed Robin Banx. It has been suggested that this sounds too much like Robbing Banks. In my mind that is just the sort of name a graffiti artist would choose. It would also have meant that he was known as Banxy by his peers. It is not a big leap, from there, to go to Banksy (via Banxy, Banksy!). JHvW 19:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Difficult paragraph

I'm a native speaker but I can't make sense of this paragraph:

"The work was censored by the Transport for London (TfL), forbidding display of the work with its halo, because of the prevalence of graffiti in the underground.[86] It was displayed without the halo over the boy's head, but after a few days the halo was repainted by a graffitist, so the TfL disposed of the poster. This decline went through the press and several articles were published remarking on the progress of the poster" Cwrwgar (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've modified the sentence to hopefully make its message clearer. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banksy/Archive_2&oldid=1148049885"