Talk:Banksy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Blek Le Rat

Banksy's stencil graffiti was directly inspired (copied? ripped off?) by the 1980's work of French street artist Blek Le Rat. It's extraordinary that this is barely acknowledged anywhere. It certainly deserves to be mentioned in this Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.82.238 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1974?

It doesn't look great to have "citation needed" so early on in an article; does anyone have any evidence that Banksy was actually born in 1974 (I couldn't find any). If so, cite it, if not, then we should get rid of the assertion 62.25.109.196 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

agreed. after two weeks, i think its time for "(born 1974)" to go until someone can give a citation.Mujinga 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How's about 7 months? Family Guy Guy (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In Trevor Jackson (alias The Boy Lucas)Interview with Banksy. In: [free Magazine]Gunfight 29. Ausgabe 3. 2000. Banksy says: "I'm twenty-six now, and I kind of think if I picked up painting a wall at my age it would be kind of sad." So at 16 March 2000 he said he's 26. So he was born in 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.113.168 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that last argument counts - what if his birthday isn't in Jan/Feb/first 2 weeks of March? Additionally, the citation currently used for that date links to a BBC article where they allege to know his name. Even worse, they say (with certainty) that it is Robert, an allegation denied in this very Wiki. What I'm getting at is that this wiki is using a source to allege a date that is uncertain at best and that source claims facts that are denied later in this wiki. Sounds a bit contradictory to me...

Commercial Work

I could have sworn reading that he didn't do the PUMA or MTV stuff in one of his books - FrancisTyers 15:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Banksy has a plausible defence (IMO) in respect of Puma, that there was a collaboration involving a promotions company and Puma without his knowledge. [1] Note that Bansky does not assert copyright over his work. I've googled "Banksy MTV" and was unable to come up with anything other than oblique references. Propose to remove the reference to corporate collaborations for now. --Vjam 13:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does he say he doesn't assert copyright over his work? Might be something to add to the article if you can source it. --MattWright (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In his book Wall and Piece theres a long-winded disclaimer where he "reluctantly" asserts his right to be recognised as the author of the work, but states that he does not assert copyright. I'm pretty sure this is correct, but I've given the book away - perhaps someone else has it to hand?--Vjam 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In the book by Steve Wright "Banksy's Bristol" inside the front cover is a statement regarding copyright. As the images are in the public domain, on public walls etc they cannot assert copyright. Will get the exact wording.--bexxypink

Banksy on Channel 4 news

[2]. Some great pictures as well, can they be used under fairuse? --Mrfixter 19:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why people are interested in revealing his identity - isn't it just fantastic that someone so talented and passionate can be left to enjoy what they do and be recognised for it without having to deal with the pressure of fame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.144.75 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree if he was just putting up paintings in random spots instead vandalizing buildings. I can't imagine everyone loves his work, and when his expression encroaches on someone else's rights there should be a problem. I do agree that is a nice little conspiracy, it can't be too hard to arrest a criminal and have access to his name. 162.83.149.42 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Real name

The parenthetical clause (although many newspapers assert that it is Robert or Robin Banks) was recently removed by User:70.179.75.87 for the reason if he doesn't want it published i think wikipedia should respect that..

In my opinion, Wikipedia need not respect such wishes. If the initial assertion were cited, then it should stay. I'm leaving it here for discussion. Dystopos 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Burt Perkins ???????? Bromley ???????? know mention, the good moneys is on Bert Perkins ?????????? Yet know mention why ??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.100.50 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it and edited it to emphasize the speculative nature of the newspapers claims as well as the sillyness of the real names provided. Even if it is his real name, however, if its public knowledge it belongs here. Syynapse 19:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Robin Banks...ha ha ha.

Removed it, it's almost certainly a pseudonym, unless someone can cite a definitive source --duncan 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Mujinga 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian seem to think his real name is Robert Banks. Ackie00 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's fine then. It's in the public domain with a verifiable source, so it can be included and referenced properly. Well done on research. Tyrenius 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I once tried (unsuccessfully) to do some research about Banksy for something I was writing. What I can comnfirm is that there was no-one called Robert (or Robin) Banks born in Bristol in 1974. So either the name, date or place is fake (or perhaps all three!). Bluewave 09:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure you are right, and well done, but, unfortunately, wiki policy is that only secondary sources can be used, and, further, these should be used, even if they're wrong, until proved wrong by another secondary source. Wiki is a collection of what other people have said in the public domain. Check VERIFY. It is something one might imagine would appeal to Banksy. Tyrenius 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not actually true. If you refer to the original source so that anyone could check it, and that showed that nobody called Robin or Robert Banks was born in that year, that would be acceptable under NOR. The NOR only kicks in when you try to synthesise conclusions from knowledge. Flatly saying that nobody could be found in record X of building Y isn't synthesis of any kind, so is permissible. But if you tried to work out who it *was* such as a trivial misspelling, that's not going to be allowed, because at some level you're guessing.WolfKeeper 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, and that is why I haven't edited the article - I think someone tried to do so, but it wasn't me. Just really flagging the fact that we should be aware that some of parts of the article are in error (although we don't know which). Incidentally, if I had found Robert Banks in the birth registers, I would have accepted that as something that could be added to Wikipedia as it is a public source that can be verified by anyone. Would you disagree? And yes, you're right, that this misinformation would probably appeal to Banksy himself.Bluewave 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the sort of thing people spend two months arguing over on Wiki. There's a guide somewhere to dig out (maybe). I've amended the real name bit to make it less certain. It would be good to illuminate that uncertainty in the article, but I have no time to spend on it I'm afraid, but I do agree with you about Lola. Tyrenius 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian says its Robert Banks, BBC says its Robin Banks. Which is it? Brentt 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably neither.--duncan 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that so long as there is mention of his actual name, the section regarding "Real Identity" should be removed. Otherwise it's just redundant and possibly confusing.

I have moved the name piece to the Real Identity section - simply because it's one newspaper source. And as someone has said above, there is no record of a Robert/Robin Banks born is the Bristol area in 1974 - so there's fair reason to questions all "facts" from the singular source. Rgds, - Trident13 15:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to place his alleged real name in front again but make sure it is known it is alleged. The real identity section should be somewhere earlier in the article, no?
thedarkestclear ^Talk 09:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I think the Rob Banks thing looks very much like a joke... Hakluyt bean 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a great deal of doubt and no certainty as to the name of this person I don't think a name should be shown. It's simply speculation which does not belong in an entry like this. Change the name to "Banksy" and until verifiable information identifies this person that should be sufficient. After all, who doesn't know who this character "Banksy" is? And I agree with Hakluyt bean. Rob Banks does look like a joke. Finally, if is no certainty about "Banksy's" actual name isn't putting a guess up there (like Robert Banks) inviting libel? 128.9.152.20 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rob Banks? Didn't he write How to Get Rich? It was a similar work to Haunted House by Hugo First, if I recall correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I know we can't use it in the article, but this might be interesting to some: http://gawker.com/389054/banksy-unmasked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.37.46 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... In the Italian wikipedia Bansky is said to have been found, his name should be Robin Gunningham. As the source, an article from Mail on Sunday is cited http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1034613/Banksy-uncovered-The-nice-middle-class-boy-graffiti-guerrilla.html --87.15.34.150 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PoV

I currently believe that the article is biased; obviously others disagree.

At the moment I think it's obvious that some people think that "Banksy" is considered to be talented; some of those people are here on Wikipedia. We can see them.

I don't really know if it could be said that he is "widely considered to be a talented artist" though. Certainly that isn't backed up by any references, or surveys of exactly what percentage of people consider him to be talented.

In addition, the "so-called "Criminal Damage"" can definitely be removed; it is criminal damage, not so called. The law in most countries is very much against vandalism, and that's what this is. No, illegal is not the same thing as immoral. No, vandalism is not always worhtless; indeed, I think that in this case at least it's provocative and that's what art, and especially meaningful art, needs to be. This doesn't change the fact that objectively what "Banksy" does is both against the law and vandalism.

This is also an encyclopaedia and should represent the views of all people, not just of one. While some people obviously think that "Banksy" provides a voice to the urban unheard (was this article created just for this page or...?) I'm sure we can all think of at least two people who would disagree, and claim that his work is just simple un-representative vandalism and in my day we respected authority, yada yada yada. Just because we (and yes, I do include me here) disagree with those people doesn't mean that their views do not exist.

Comments? GeorgeBills 15:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I mean I'm a big fan of Banksy's work myself but the article's quite obviously POV - phrases like "great" popularity are usually reserved for Beatles-level stuff.

As for sources, hmmm how about the Wired article that's linked to this very article? For example: "... But critics see him as nothing more than an overhyped vandal. Peter Gibson, a spokesperson for the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, says graffiti has become an epidemic: "How would he feel if someone sprayed graffiti all over his house?" There are dissenting opinions. It's wrong to revert an honest attempt at NPOV. swidly 03:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You're claiming that against the law == criminal damage? And that it is clearly vandalism? Sorry, but I would class the construction of freeways in that class.

It's perfectly okay to make the article more neutral, I agree it's kinda fanboy mode right now, but if you just put "some people say" in front of every statement, it comes out sounding like crap. It's just clumsy writing. Say what you will about the views of the current article, at least it reads alright. Shermozle 07:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Qoute " You're claiming that against the law == criminal damage? And that it is clearly vandalism? Sorry, but I would class the construction of freeways in that class."

Construction freeways is not against the law, nor is it criminal damage. Criminally damaging property, is against the law. It is criminal damage, in the UK punishable by upto 10 years in jail. Hopefully the police will catch this child, and the courts will impose the maximum sentence. Before someone catches him damaging their property, and inflicts criminal damage to his body.

I particularly like this quote in Existencilism:

twisted little people go out every day and deface this great city. leaving their idiotic little scribblings, invading communities and making people feel dirty and used. they just take, take, take and they don't put anything back. they're mean and selfish and they make the world an ugly place to be. we call them advertising agencies and town planners...

- FrancisTyers 11:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Banksy wouldn't be who he was today if the things he did were not against the law. I respect his work but the article does need to be toned down a bit.

What you call bias I call shoddy writing. We say "is widely considered" not because we want to play up his fame, but because we're too lazy to look up and source something like "The something something Times called him the greatest something something" which would eliminate whatever passive voice or POV problem we might be having. There's your solution. 66.41.66.213 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking back at these comments from 2008. the new 'pet shop' show in New York makes it quite clear that Banksy has more talent and creativity than the entire Tate Modern if stuffed full of Hirsts and Emins... The Yowser (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Toning down the POV a bit more

There is a legitimate controversy surrounding Banksy's graffiti. A lot of people are of the opinion that some of his works, like spilling paint all over various stone statues in London, were not works of art, but rather, simple acts of vandalism. His defacements ended up costing thousands of pounds to repair and clean up and pissed off a lot of the people living there. The article at least needs to addresses more of the negatives of Banksy's work. Personally (and I'll admit my own bias here) I think a lot of Banksy's work is brilliant, but some of it really just missed the mark and ended up being plain old costly vandalism. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets not beat ourselves up. It really is harder to find newspaper articles criticizing banksy than praising him. Probably because I live in the states though, and we couldn't care less about international property damage. the controversy section should have that animal rights (nonsense) and other things. The main thing that it's poorly written.

This is not encyclopedic: "Some of Banksy's fans believe that his stencilled graffiti provides a voice for those living in urban environments that could not otherwise express themselves, and that his work is also something which improves the aesthetic quality of urban surroundings; many others disagree," " or that his (apparently left wing) beliefs are not shared by the majority of the inhabitants of the environments that he graffitis." is mildly encyclopedic, but what some people say is inherently unverifiable. We need a newspaper guessing that people believe that or someone important saying it. You know what? Lets beat ourselves up. This is written shoddily. I suggest we agressively take out what cannot be proven right away. Even my edit sucks, because somebody saying Banksy's work is vandalism isn't really controvertial, I mean, I love the guy, but look vandalism up in a dictionary. 66.41.66.213 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "vandalise" as "to destroy or deface". Clearly you cannot "destroy" a wall or any other structure by painting on it; "deface" is defined as "to mar the surface or appearance of...". It then comes down to personal opinion - is a grubby wall or the inside of a dirty railway bridge actually "marred" (damaged or spoiled) by having a picture painted on it? Is posting up an advertising billboard onto a wall any better? Yes, I know advertising billboards are not illegal, but the end result is the same - the appearance is changed. The only difference is that advertising billboards are deemed legitimate because money is involved. In other words, yes, it may be illegal to do what Banksy does, but so what? The law is only someone (albeit an influential person's) opinion in any case, its not a universal truth. SimonUK 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it art or vandalism? Well, a weed is just a plant in the wrong place, so I would say it's either artistic vandalism, or vandalism as an art form :-) 160.84.253.241 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

wikiproject graffiti

hey this is part of [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Graffiti ] we may not 'like' or 'rate' what banksy does but this guy is picasso to some people in england from the media coverage. also we would not ask mozart to write about sex pistols - so some of comments are misplaced IMHO. Extremeweb 23:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

citation needed for quote from banksy book

He recalled that while hiding beneath a train, he spent a long while staring at a stencilled part number on the mechanism of the train's underside. At this moment, says Banksy, he received the inspiration for his stencilling technique. I think it would be good to give a reference for this description of how banksy got into stenciling. i believe the story is verifiable, because i have read it somewhere myself, perhaps in one of his books? Mujinga 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In his book Wall and Piece he says it was a dumper truck he was hiding under and he was looking at the stencilled plate on the bottom of a fuel tank. Fnorp 10:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, feel like adding this info to the article? Mujinga 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

pictures of banksy

there are now 2 pictures of banksy from various sources. fair use to post them on the main page? Extremeweb 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

i vote no. if you can find them i guess other people can too, but i think we should respect a person's right to privacy especially with regards to affairs of dubious legality. banksy's not a criminal, but he is borderline. and i dont think a foto of him is really adding much to the article. to take a different example, i write about teknival and tekno sound systems but i wouldnt post fotos of party organisers (even if i had them!) because one i dont think its really necessary and two it might well bring unneeded attention to a person who is basically doing something nice .. but thats just my POV Mujinga 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See BLP, where there is a presumption in favour of privacy. In this instance, the subject wishes to preserve anonymity and, unless there is evidence to show that there is significant revelation of his identity and photograph in the media, then Wikipedia should not initiate that. Tyrenius 00:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen two different people identified as Banksy, the photo on the Brian Sewell article, and the photos by Peter Dean Rickards. Maybe neither is actually him, who can tell. So unless there was a definitely correct answer, I don't think using any of these pictures could be justified as verifiable. --duncan 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and they can be deleted if not verified. Tyrenius 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

this does not seem to be consistent in wikipedia. i have been doing edits [mostly anonymous] where aliases are used but editors are consistent about listing all aliases. Extremeweb 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

These aren't aliases. They're just speculation. Tyrenius 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need some discussion about this latest photo of Banksy. First, it is currently sub-titled with 'unconfirmed', but if the Daily Mail printed it, isn't that a verifiable source (even though they may well be wrong)? Secondly, if the Daily Mail printed it, how can it be in the Commons with the statement "the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, etc etc"? I very much doubt that the Daily Mail have done any such thing.--duncan 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"A Brian Sewell spoof website claims to show a photograph of Banksy." The picture in question looks very much like Simon Phillips, the registrant of briansewell.com, so I think this text should be changed/deleted. Wnjr 10:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say the site shows a picture of Banksy, only that it claims to. Tyrenius 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest picture of Banksy (if it is indeed him) claims to be sourced from Conditionals.net with permission. However this is just the photo that was published in the Evening Standard and elsewhere, scanned in (this is obvious from the quality of the image). i.e. Conditionals.net can't give permission for its usage, it's not their image.--duncan 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Using references in a WP article

I just reordered the references, as previously, clicking on the 9th references at the bottom of the page (i.e. within the "References" section) moved the article back up to where the reference marker was #10. (I hope that last sentence made sense.) Now, clicking on #6 within the article links to the sixth "Reference", while clicking on the sixth reference returned the page to #6. However, the final reference made within the article (#14) is actually connected to the third reference (Random House), which is already used in the article beforehand. If somebody could change it so that the superscript reads [3] as opposed to reading [14] and linking to the third "Reference", it would make the article look a bit better. It's not really a big deal (in fact, in the time I've been typing this, I could've perhaps figured it out myself), but say (for example) that this were a featured article candidate, it would be something that someone would immediately point out as a flaw. -- Kicking222 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The references seem to be out of step. In the text reference [2] is for the guardian. But in the notes section the guardian is number 1. The same happens all the way down. I've added a dummy reference to temporarily fix the problem, but there should be a better solution. --Salix alba (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now converted the two <ref> tags to {{ref}} tags, to fix the numbering problem. Apologies if people have been converting references in the other direct. --Salix alba (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Paris Hilton stunt

This article says it was a collaboration with Danger Mouse, and that it was Danger Mouse who did the remix: [3]. Other articles speak of 'rumours' that it was Danger Mouse who did the remix.

My question: is this source enough? I'd rather see more sources claim this before adding it to the article, but I can't seem to find any. Key to the city 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's now been confirmed: [4] I'll add this as the source for the DM claim.--duncan 09:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also... the Paris Hilton part is a wee bit misleading. Under the current wording, it could be interperated that Banksy stole CD's. In reality, he simply moved CD's off the rack to other parts of the store and put his own fakes in their place. Some rewording would clear this confusion up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.133.241 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disneyland

Disneyland Doesn't have a Rocky Mountain Railroad.

I think it must be the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. If you compare the photos on the WoosterCollective source with the photos on that wikiarticle, you'll see the train seems to be the same, so I assume that's the ride they meant.--duncan 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed that this was banksy?--172.201.127.3 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Only on WoosterCollective so far, but that's a usually reliable source for this sort of thing--duncan 07:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And now the BBC confirm it[5]; I'll update the article--duncan 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bristol graffiti

It might be worth mentioning, the graffiti of a naked man hanging from a window on the wall of a building in Bristol which 96% of the public voted to keep, was actually on the wall of a sexual health clinic [6]. If anyone thinks this is relevant to the article they can include it. Personally I think it shows Banksy's sense of humour quite well! Alex 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA:Passed

It was a pleasure to pass this article. A great deal of material is sourced, it was fun to read, well-illustrated and well-organized.

I'd improve it, if it were up to me, with a longer intro (there's enough detail in the article to do so) and some more sourcing. The Technique section in particularly could do with this, as with the Peter Gibson complaint. And I bet you could write more (and probably will). Daniel Case 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

Is his opinion of Banksy really all that important?

No, but it's _a_ opinion. One could use the same argument to get Charlie Brooker off the comments section as well, and then we don't have much of a comments section.

not really, as charlie brooker is at least partly notable for his commentary on urban culture, and brad pitt is not. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If not Banksy, who?

A signed stencilled figures in Grimsby Street, East London

User:Duncancumming removed this image, commenting

Removed misleading image, the prominent stencil of which is not by Banksy

If it is not a Banksy, do you know who did stencil it? Note, that the image is significantly different, but somewhat similar to this image used by Banksy at his Barely Legal event. -- Solipsist 08:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was by an artist called Mr Yu[7]. "Only if you look very closely will you notice that the giant green Buddha figures on Grimsby Street are echoed by a row of seven tiny green Buddha dolls standing like sentinels above the street's road sign. They were the work of a Japanese writer calling himself Mr Yu - probably an art student passing through London. No one knows if he is still painting."[8] --duncan 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

zoo quote & more

Do magazine articles/interviews count as verifyable sources? Because I have an interview with Banksy that says the quote he put in the penguin enclosure is "We're bored of fish - we wanna go home". Same article mentions him tagging the steps of the Tate with "Mind The Crap" the night before they announced the Turner Prize, which could go under Stunts? They included one of his stencils too, for you to use yourself. They also mention how he's only been caught once, in NYC. And there's a picture of him too (face obscured), but I'm guessing that wouldn't be fair use?

I didn't want to just edit, and piss of the regular contribs, so I put it here first to see if people thought any of that was worthwhile to add.

Yes, although it might depend on what the magazine was! i.e. if it's a reliable source, well known for its journalistic integrity etc. but if it's a b&w self-published zine, maybe not. Check WP:RS, although it tends to concentrate on scientific journals and stuff like that, doesn't really mention magazines.--duncan 09:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the UK mag Bizarre, which does cover some..off color topics, and feature nudity and such, but they've been around for 10 years (I think), and I'd imagine that they'd keep at least some journalistic standards. What should be added, and what should not? Can we use the picture of Banksy if we credit the photographer?

I believe I have a copy of the issue in question, from a few years ago? I'd say that's reliable enough to be used here. My understanding is we won't be able to use the image.--duncan 12:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

Is there some sort of conspiracy within the media to keep "Banksy"'s identity secret? When you think of some of the people the press have managed to track down over the years, it's not as if they couldn't find and "expose" this guy if they really wanted to. When you consider how high-profile his work is, it's pretty absurd that he hasn't been splashed all over the papers.

Photographs turn up now and again, but they are always low quality, of dubious veracity and do not always appear to be of the same person. His real name also seems to be in doubt.

Some of his works seem to defy belief, e.g. the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad stunt. How did he manage to gain access without attracting suspicion? Were the ride operators in on it?

Has anyone explored the possibility that there's actually a collective of people doing this stuff? 217.155.20.163 14:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) --Its an intreguing idea, and I've oft wondered if indeed Banksy is a many rather than a one, but Wikipedia is not meant for original research dude. 58.7.0.146 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an informal kind of conspiracy, a bit of a game. cf Buckethead, whose name is known, but similar kind of thing. Hakluyt bean 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty intriguing actually. I suppose it's similar to the way in which British newspapers refer to, say, Dame Edna Everage as if she was a real person. Banksy needs to maintain a sort of "kayfabe", similar to a professional wrestler, but in reality the media do most of the donkey work of protecting his identity.

For all of his supposed underground credentials, I have to wonder what would happen if someone did a fake Banksy work and tried to sell it as one of his, or if someone went around claiming to be him. Would he suddenly come out of character and turn up at court in a suit to defend Banksy(TM)'s copyright, or would he just not give a crap? 217.155.20.163 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He would probably leak a statement denying it, but not sue. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably could reveal his identity, but why would they? They would get a bit of publicity for it, but everyone would HATE them forever.195.137.93.129 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Paperback of Wall and Piece?

The article states the paperback isn't out yet, but I've got a copy from a local bookshop right here in my hand!

fixed.--duncan 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I am taking this to peer review: any advice is appreciated in making this a good article! --SunStar Net^talk 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Banksy pieces in stations

Dont know if its worth mentioning anywhere but there have been a few articles in London papers about Banksy's work at a few London stations. This is an interesting article i found about Network Rail staff now being taught to recognise Banksy's so that instead of painting over the work, they are able to remove it and auction it off, giving the money to charity. Theres also a mention of a piece of his work being painted over a few months ago. Zephyr 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

The registrant of Banksy's website is Steve Lazarides, a photographer. Lazarides is Banksy's agent. Lazarides now has a gallery on Greek Street in London's Soho called Laz Inc, where Banksy originals can be bought. The website picturesonwalls.com has the exclusive sale rights for all of Banksy's limited edition prints.

Isn't this just advertising. Should it be removed. 212.140.167.99 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed it 212.140.167.99 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

His name again

I know the Wikipedia test is "verifiability", not "truth". However, that does not mean we have to include something that is verifiable but untrue! Sources do tell us that he was born in the Bristol area in 1974 and that his real name is Robert Banks. (Actually you can also find sources that give Robin Banks.) However, it is quite easy to verify (by going through the four volumes of birth registers in the Family Records Centre, London and available on microfilm from lots of places) that there wasn't a Robert Banks born in the Bristol area in 1974. Shouldn't the article at least make it clear that there are doubts about his name/place/date Bluewave 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yate is named as the birthplace of Banksy. Yate is about 6 or 8 miles NE of the Bristol City boundary and was then in Avon or maybe Gloucestershire. So did you look at the appropriate one of those two as well? - Adrian Pingstone 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup! I checked England and Wales. The only ones in 1974 were Robert Douglas Banks (in Ilkeston), Robert John Banks (in St Pancras) or Robert Paul (in South Glamorgan). I also checked early 1975 (because births are sometimes registered late) and found only a Robert Paul (in Chatham). Of course, Robert might be his second forename! Bluewave 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I realise this is an old discussion, but it's worth adding for the sake of future visitors that Robin Banks is an old joke name. Owen Money used to claim this was his real name. So Robert isn't Robin, but it's close enough that we should probably take claims that this is his real name with a pinch of salt. garik (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail's identification of Banksy as Robin Gunningham looks pretty solid to me: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html Lippard (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

yep, this whole anonymity thing is a public farce. One group pretends his identity is unknown to make him all the more mysterious, sounds very much like the public melodrama that some in the arts crowd are fond of. It seems odd this character can have 'spokespeople' if it is true that he vandalized statues by splashing paint on them. If he is really out to operate in the name of the people, why doesn't he reimburse the city for the damages he caused, instead of forcing taxpayers to do it? The article you reference is an interesting read. Here is a current one: Banksy sells out and goes mainstream W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Melrose

Someone added that Banksy work was recently featured on Melrose (at the end of the Art Stunts section). Can someone clarify what this is? a TV Show? LinguistAtLarge 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

Banksy's photo is in this Evening Standard article [9] which should be fair use in the article?

Only if it is him :) Hakluyt bean 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that photograph couldn't be found to meet the fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

for the GA...

I think this article is seriously lacking in two simple ways: it does not have a section discussing his published works, of which there are several editions. and it fails to recognize Banksy's own topical categorization of his work in these books. I hate to draw the conclusion, but he has "periods" sort of like Picasso. He has rat themes, police themes, etc. etc. I'll buy the book again and do it myself if I have to, but until that content is included, I think this article frankly fails as a sober encyclopedic treatment of his art, not just his sensational stunts. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status

This article has been nominated to become a good article. Having taken the decision to review it, I I discovered that it's already been listed as a good article. Right, confusing. Next up I had a quick look at the article and believe that, firstly, it needs to be delisted as a good article. Then some work needs to be done on it (e.g. WP:MOS, WP:CITE, the concern raised in the section above) before it should be renominated. Therefore I'll remove the current GA nominee tag and give it a couple of days before I delist it unless anyone objects. Cheers! The Rambling Man 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Delisting seems in order to be sure. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

As per my and VanTucky's concerns, I've listed this article at WP:GA/R with the intention that it's delisted. Please head there to contribute to the discussion. All the best, The Rambling Man 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By unanimous consensus, this article has been delisted from Wikipedia:Good articles. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Although the article has been delisted, it can be renominated at WP:GAC once all issues have been addressed and the article meets the criteria listed at WP:WIAGA. Regards, Lara♥Love 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image

Me and Ajux had a bit of a revert thing over the inclusion of the image template earlier. One of Ajux's earlier edits (changing the sentence "removed by graffiti clean-up crew" to "removed by vandals" appeared to be a joke edit, so I assumed that the motivation for removing the template was not good. However, on reflection I have to agree that this template seems a bit uneccessary (until/if his identity is confirmed, when an image could be considered). We wouldn't put a template on the "yeti" page awaiting the moment when the hairy beast is 'finally' photographed or a template requesting a current photo of lord lucan. 3tmx 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Swept under the carpet

When renowned graffiti artist Banksy created one of his trademark pieces on the wall of the cutting-edge White Cube art gallery he might have expected it to be in safe hands.

But the gallery has been left embarrassed after the £200,000 work was destroyed.

The mural, called Sweep It Under The Carpet, showed a maid looking as if she was lifting up a part of the wall like a curtain to sweep away some dust.

It adorned the outside of the gallery in Hoxton, East London, for two months before vanishing.

Although White Cube employees insist they have no idea who painted over the mural, neighbouring businesses say they believe gallery staff were responsible.

Dave Ma, the manager of Shish restaurant, which is directly opposite the wall, saw someone he believes was a White Cube staff member painting over the work.

He said: "The gallery's policy is to paint over any graffiti the following day. When the Banksy work appeared, staff at the Cube asked their boss if they could bend the rules and leave it.

"He said they could leave it for a month but ordered them to cover over it once the month was up.

"It's a real shame. People in the area thought it was a great piece of art. They certainly didn't expect it to be destroyed."

A White Cube spokeswoman said: "Contractors were hired to paint the wall but were told not to paint over the Banksy.

"It wasn't removed by us or our contractors. It was painted over by a third party but we don't know who."

A friend of the artist said: "The fact that it was painted over is an embarrassment. It's a ridiculous thing for the gallery to do." AJUK ^Talk!! 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

this same painting or a near variant of it is in chalk farm as well anyway and has been for years... 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Could someone PLEASE remove the infobox? It shows absolutely no necessary information on Banksy. All it says is that he stencils and that he's British. Gabriel Surette 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are generally accepted to be beneficial additions to an article on Wikipedia. This is especially true for biographies under the purview of WikiProject Biography, and a bio without an infobox is considered to be lacking. If you find an infobox to be uninformative, please feel free to try and expand the information included in it. But without a clear reason showing that the infobox used is off-topic or harmful, please do not remove one. Thank you, VanTucky ^Talk 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't a beneficial addition to anything. It's useless information that doesn't explain anything at all. It's just a gray box that is keeping up space. Gabriel Surette 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required by policy, merely by the preferences of some. Every item of information included in this infobox is contained in the opening two sentences of the article; thus, it is redundant and adds nothing novel to the article save gray space. I am removing it until valuable content can be found to include within it. Skomorokh ^incite 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Public support

It seems to me that one of the notable things about Banksy is the degree of support and interest that he has generated amongst the mainstream public. The example of the naked man picture is mentioned in the article - where the public overwhelmingly voted to keep the picture, rather than having it cleaned off. As far as I am aware, Banksy is unique amongst graffiti artists (at least in the UK) in being appreciated by a significant section of the general public. I would include some words to that effect in the opening section of the article but wanted to check the consensus on this page first. Bluewave (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay

Is banksy gay? I was wondering because it's not mentioned anywhere, and I got that impression from somewhere online. Sorry, I just can't remember where. Family Guy Guy (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I somehow think you won't find a reliable source for that. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

- In his books he talks about having a girl friend.--Evanw (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn´t mean anything today. I suspect he is because the art "world" is very pro gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.18.123 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, how exactly you came to that conclusion I don't know. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, ahh.. for the same reasons we know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west i.e. because it is obvious. Spare your politcially correct fantasy for the dolts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.18.123 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How?

He apparently went into the Louvre and hung a picture up, can someone tell me how he did that without the cameras seeing his face? Just seems a bit odd that he would do that when there is so many cameras there and that no one seemed to publish a photo...--82.9.116.89 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, he walked in, took the picture out of his bag, placed it on the wall, and walked off. Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Penguin and Sotheby's

The only source I can find that mentions a penguin and sotheby's is this one and it is two separate stories, one about London Zoo, referred to higher up this page, and another about Sotheby's attitude towards him. This link also contains some very quotable material from interviews he has given. Peter morrell 17:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Images & copyright status

I've taken a fair number of photos of Banksy's recent works around New Orleans (and uploaded one of them here to illustrate the article). I wanted to check on copyright status before I uploaded any to Commons. Has there been any ruling as to if/when graffiti artists retain copyright to derivative photographs? If someone can give a pointer I'd appreciate it, and it will inform me if I can upload the photos to Commons without potential problem or if they should go elsewhere such as Flickr. Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cannes festival merger

• As wikipedia is not news and this festival already has a mention in this article, suggest merger --Matilda ^talk 00:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article is associated with banksy - however many artists participated - and as such it stood on it's own merits being organised by pow. I suggest it be left as a sep entry. Dotdot (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gender

The article discusses whether or not Banksy is Robert Banks and/or whether Banksy was born in 1974. But there is no indication of doubt that Banksy is a man? Or is there? The second sentence of the article states "He is believed to be a native of Yate". How can we know this is a "he"? What sources support that? --LA2 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bromley/Martial Arts additions

The article has recently been edited to include speculation that banksy is from Bromley and had had "martial arts training". If anyone feels these additions are worthwhile, please discuss here before re-adding them. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bromley

I I believe he was from Bromley so does most of the UK see ref [[10]] its long been believed that banksy is Bert Perkins an ex big issue seller from Bromley it is as good as any other refs on here, know really knows who he is, its all spectulation, so I would like to see all ideas. Please dont keep removing good sources.--86.11.100.50 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe Canvastown.com – a website that sells posters – meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, especially in the case of controversial information about a living person. If you think otherwise, please show how it meets the guidelines cited. Regards, Skomorokh 10:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this site is used as a reliable souce else where on wiki, due to fact that know body know who the hell banksy is, I suggest that all the refs are un reliable --86.11.100.50 (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again has no one knows who Banksy is, then all sources must be un reliable sources, and no source can be sure who he is, so as I see no reliable source, is better than another--86.11.100.50 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this then a Banksy reported in orpington London borough of Bromley [[11]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.100.50 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also found this on a news site [[12]] so I have put a mention back on the main site, those editors that agree please fill free to help with edits.--86.11.100.50 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only is Thisislondon.com not a reliable source, the article cited does not contain the claim that he is from Bromley. Skomorokh 12:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A news paper article is a relialbe source!!! try this one [[13]] just by deleting sourced work and not talking about it...just seems you think your right and im wrong !!! where the good faith...and surley your now entering into edit war not me...im not reverting im editing..there is a difference..--86.11.100.50 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't agree with my interpretation, shall we take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and let uninvolved outsiders decide the matter? Skomorokh 07:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a question at reliable sources noticeboard lets see what the outcome is before we remove the source cheers --86.11.100.50 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Man hanging from window in Park Street, Bristol

The picture of a man hanging from a window in Park Street, Bristol has been there a lot longer than since 2006. I grew up in Bristol and remember seeing it there when I was younger so it's from at the latest mid 90s. 151.170.240.10 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not correct, three or four internet sources say it appeared around June 2006. This agrees with a November 2006 picture I took of it, because I know I photographed it the same year as it appeared. "Mid-90s" is hopelessly wrong! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

External links

I removed an external link [added by the website owner] http://www.banksyunmasked.co.uk/ because I didn't think it added anything that wasn't already in the article? I've been called an idiot for so doing... maybe I am? Let me know. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right. The link isn't appropriate as it contains no material that can't be in the article itself. It also doesn't appear to be very reliable as its just a personal site. The fact that the site's owner added it and is defending it indicates a conflict of interest. ThemFromSpace 22:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Google is now flagging the external link because of malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.banksyunmasked.co.uk/&hl=en

Keep safe. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work teapot. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good catch, George! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Year of birth

So is it 1974 or 1975? The article alternates between the two. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on his being identified. It is difficult to know if either year is right. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Either way, the article should not state two different years in two different places. Remove the latter one, and consolidate the initial one into the two "beliefs" with the two references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.180.40 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-anonymous?

Pseudo means false/imposter. Pseudo-anonymous makes it sound like he actually doesn't want to be anonymous, but wants to appear to be, which I think is incorrect. Ninahexan (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the author of the statement implies that everyone knows who he really is and is just keeping up pretenses. To my knowledge the Mail's expose is one of many: he may or may not be Bansky. Depends how much the Mail is to be believed. If the mail is right then he's not anonymous, perhaps it's best avoiding the word anonymous and to use "secretive" or similar. AndyGavin (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to say he is "sort of anonymous", then you could say quasi-anonymous. --91.105.191.199 (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

pseudo-anonymous is a phrase used in several news articles. that is why it is in this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The name 'Banksy' is a nickname given to the artist whilst at school. His first name is indeed Robin, as has been speculated, and the nickname is derived from the punning phrase "robbin'(robbing) banks". So, from 'banks' came 'Banksy'as his adopted nickname and pseudonym.

(Note: This information is sourced from a Bristolian friend of the artist.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.13.248 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Banksy, Hewlett Road, Cheltenham (1) (geograph 3944289).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Banksy.on.the.thekla.arp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

It is poor style to quote someone in the criticism section by saying, "is quoted as saying." You are literally quoting them saying that. You don't also need to say that that is what you are doing. It is empty verbiage. Eric.deriel (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think its to change

...and Diane Shakespeare, an official for the same organisation, was quoted as saying: "We are concerned that Banksy's street art glorifies what is essentially vandalism."

to

...and Diane Shakespeare, an official for the same organisation, said: "We are concerned that Banksy's street art glorifies what is essentially vandalism."

Other verbs might be better. --Salix alba (talk): 21:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Assuming Salix alba is correct, of course. Changed Peter Gibson, a spokesman for Keep Britain Tidy, asserts that Banksy's work is simple vandalism, and Diane Shakespeare, an official for the same organisation, was quoted as saying: "We are concerned that Banksy's street art glorifies what is essentially vandalism. to Peter Gibson, a spokesman for Keep Britain Tidy, asserts that Banksy's work is simple vandalism. Another official for the same organisation stated: "We are concerned that Banksy's street art glorifies what is essentially vandalism.". This is simpler, removes the run-on, addresses Eric.deriel's presumed complaint, and removes a non-notable lobbyist whose name is available in the cited source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

For further reading:

Robert Clarke's Seven Years with Banksy (Michael O'Mara press, 2012) is worth adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Sputnik (talk • contribs) 09:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Arithmetic error

The article says "For 10 years in the late 1990s". Nothing happened for ten years in the late 1990s! 84.228.239.108 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 54nd60x (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, someone edited it. Thank you, editor! 84.228.239.108 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Categorisation error

Why is Banksy not categorised as a career criminal? He has a self-admitted and proven history of criminal damage via his graffiti and, seeing as graffiti falls under criminal damage as per the legal definition, Banksy himself has admitted that he is a career criminal. As such, the classification of him as an "artist" is false and must be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.189.64 (talk • contribs)

• First, "artist" and "career criminal" are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, Banksy hasn't been convicted of criminal charges, and unless someone has a string of criminal convictions AND reliable sources describe that someone as a career criminal, according to Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy, we don't describe someone as a career criminal. An editor's analysis, argument, or opinion do not matter -- we must only go by reliable sources. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

'His works'

Is there any independent confirmation that Banksy is a male person? Grandma Roses (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

Reference #30 about the rumors in 2020 has an invalid link as the website has deleted the article. could work. PunctualChain26 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

References

That article didn't seem to have anything about the "arrest" part. Either way, the article in the reference wasn't actually deleted, the url just moved, so I just fixed it instead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Pre 1990's

In the early 80's, Banksy attended Leicester Polytechnic (now DeMontfort University). During that time, he was a roadie for the Hard Rock band 'Chrome Molly'.

In one of the Polytechnic buildings, on the now pedestrianised Mill Lane, he spray painted some of his earliest graffiti on the corridor walls. These were later stud and plasterboarded over, and forgotten about.

The £136m 2015-2016 revamp of the University campus could probably have been *wholly funded* by the uncovering, saving and sale of these original Banksy artworks, but it appears that they just ended up as just dust and rubble at the hands of a JCB... ICONSystem (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcompo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Identity

Has it occurred to anyone that 'Banksy' may be more than one person, collaborating with each other?--dunnhaupt (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it did. But you know how Wikipedia works, unless it is stated in a "reliable" source, it is purely speculative and a big No-No. Also, all sources, including Banksy him-/her-/themselve refer to him/her/them as a single person. Albeit, in the documentary "Banksy and the rise of outlaw art" there's mention that the works of course it takes several people to prepare a piece and that, in the end, Banksy is the one having to put it up and risk being caught and arrested. Make of that what you will. 84.164.195.171 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yay, found a source stating the specualtion: https://www.graffhunters.com/news/banksy-caught-film-woman-claims-recorded-elusive-street-artist-israeli-shopping-mall/ 84.164.195.171 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's strange that this article specifically says he played a specific role on specific soccer/football teams, but treats his identity as something unknown. Both of those facts can't be true. Brw12 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Letter

Does anyone know where I can send him a letter ? Thanks 108.30.39.237 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Criminal Offence

The reproduction of images of the banknotes classifies as a criminal offence.

Why? When they are, by definition, not banknotes, but in fact altered reproductions of images of banknotes, and specifically designed not to look like banknotes under the merest scrutiny.

Nuttyskin (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Please change x Banksy is a pseudonymous England-based street artist, political activist and film director whose real name and identity remain unconfirmed and the subject of speculation. to y Banksy is a 34 year old Irish street artist. To keep hidden he made up an elaborate fictional persona as to keep his real Identity a secret. One of Banksy's earliest artworks was put up on a billboard by a private company, he did not put it up himself, he sent the designs to said company and they did the rest. I have a lot more information on Banksy's work; well.. because I am Banksy. Chriskillingbeck (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Bump. Chriskillingbeck (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also see WP:V. We can't use your claims here to do anything. If you were to speak to a reputable news service and have them publish a story on you, then we could certainly add content from that news piece. Cannolis (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Video from Ukraine

https://tpyxa.net/2022/11/17/street-artist-banksy-posted-a-video-with-his-works-on-the-walls-of-houses-in-ukraine/

direct link to video https://player.vimeo.com/video/772148443 84.47.102.250 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Latest in Identity Speculation: December 2022

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/banksy-s-identity-is-said-to-have-been-accidentally-revealed-and-he-is-part-of-a-band/ar-AA15Fdri?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=1d936c0f8aee44878daa9a45a0d354e4 appears to support the idea that Banksy is Robert Del Naja. I thought I would just post that here, since I am not sure whether that counts as a reputable source, and also I am not particularly good at editing Wikipedia, so I thought that if the source is reputable, I would leave the actual edit to the experts! :) VBasak (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent pronoun usage

There's a few instances of they/them pronouns sprinkled into the Career section. Should these be replaced with he/him to conform with the rest of the article (and general consensus) or should the rest be changed to they/them to reflect Banksy's uncertain identity? Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

I think it should have Category:Unidentified people so that it shows up there. 173.183.226.212 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamietw (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

I think it should have Category:Unidentified people so that it shows up there. 173.183.226.212 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done. He's in Category:Pseudonymous artists. As for his identity, media has named him and made some identification, see the Identity section in the article, so Category:Unidentified people is too far reaching. --Mvqr (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section

Wikipedia style guides discourage Criticism/Controversy sections. It would be better to have a "Reception" section that contains positive, negative and neutral appraisals of his work. Ashmoo (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree Mehdi.boubker (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)