Talk:Banksy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banksy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Discussions on this page have often led to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
 | Banksy was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: August 20, 2007. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | The content of The Cans Festival was merged into Banksy on October 15 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Wiki Education assignment: Art since 1945
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 18 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annie.dong24 (article contribs).
Identity
On what basis do we not believe the Reuters report? It seems pretty conclusive that it's Gunningham -- I don't particularly care whether it's confirmed or not, if it's true it should be in the lede. Miladragon3 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Miladragon3, yes, it didn't seem to leave much room for doubt—and as for (in the words of the Wikipedia article as it stands) Banksy's representatives have disputed the findings, those seemed like fairly milquetoast statements (example: His long-time lawyer, Mark Stephens, wrote to Reuters that Banksy “does not accept that many of the details contained within your enquiry are correct.” He didn’t elaborate. Without confirming or denying Banksy’s identity, Stephens urged us not to publish this report, saying doing so would violate the artist’s privacy, interfere with his art and put him in danger.). I suspect that the report will be given greater prominence here as it is more widely disseminated. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Should I revert the edit moving it down? Don't know the norms/rules other than that some exist, but I don't see a good reason to leave as is Miladragon3 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Miladragon3, if it were me, I might add it to the first sentence (e.g., "Banksy (possibly David Jones, formerly named Robin Gunningham)"). And then the "Identify" section should probably be restructured to (among other things) give more weight to (and add more details from) the report, explain how it fits in with the 2008 Mail report, and explain how it discusses Robert Del Naja. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- "Banksy's representatives have disputed the findings"
- Meaningless. Unless he actually disputes himself, there is no cause for rolling it back on Wikipedia. SlapperDapper (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Should I revert the edit moving it down? Don't know the norms/rules other than that some exist, but I don't see a good reason to leave as is Miladragon3 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- The identity section is enough, no need to speculate in the lead until Banksy confirms his/her identity. The lead is not a place for WP:BLP guesswork, no matter how sourced and researched the information. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, I agree that it's a sensitive issue, and I don't pretend to understand all of the contours. To respond to just one issue, however—your comment that no need to speculate in the lead until Banksy confirms his/her identity—I don't think that discussion of Banksy's identity in the lead should hinge on Banksy's own statements. The overall question, I think, is what the reliable sources say. Given the newness of the Reuters report perhaps it's too early to highlight the identity in the lead, but I don't think the lack of a statement from Banksy necessarily means that is inappropriate to do so. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- The existing lead language, "The artist has never publicly confirmed his identity, which has long been the subject of speculation", seems to adequately summarize the 'Identity' section without going into listing all of the sourced guesses (which immediately follow the lead). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that this position reflects BLP policy. That something isn't confirmed by a person doesn't mean we don't have good enough reason to believe it true and report it as such, which in this case I think we pretty clearly do. Miladragon3 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- The lead should not be a repository of guesswork. That pretty much covers my objection from several angles. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Randy Kryn that speculations about Banksy's real identity doesn't belong in the lead. We have the #Identity section for that stuff already, and it's the section immediately after the lead. Some1 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Have you read the Reuters report? What guesswork/speculation is there? Miladragon3 (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Have read it, and although it reads like a mystery whodoneit novel, the "result" still comes out to a guess. Maybe a good guess, but nonetheless not confirmative. Other names are mentioned, wiggle room and wiggle words are included, and since this Wikipedia article has an entire section devoted to various rumors and investigations a definitive lead identifier is both presently impossible and would be, yes, guesswork. Best to leave the 'Identity' section contain this information, not a firm lead pin-the-tail-on-the-artist in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- The article states clearly that: "Banksy, born Robin Gunningham, later took the name David Jones." This is a trusted source and has confirmed the name by all reasonable journalistic standards. It is not the job of editors to second-guess trusted sources. Bocanegris (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Have read it, and although it reads like a mystery whodoneit novel, the "result" still comes out to a guess. Maybe a good guess, but nonetheless not confirmative. Other names are mentioned, wiggle room and wiggle words are included, and since this Wikipedia article has an entire section devoted to various rumors and investigations a definitive lead identifier is both presently impossible and would be, yes, guesswork. Best to leave the 'Identity' section contain this information, not a firm lead pin-the-tail-on-the-artist in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- The lead should not be a repository of guesswork. That pretty much covers my objection from several angles. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that this position reflects BLP policy. That something isn't confirmed by a person doesn't mean we don't have good enough reason to believe it true and report it as such, which in this case I think we pretty clearly do. Miladragon3 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- The existing lead language, "The artist has never publicly confirmed his identity, which has long been the subject of speculation", seems to adequately summarize the 'Identity' section without going into listing all of the sourced guesses (which immediately follow the lead). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- What a weird standard. Do other people in the world have to confirm their identities before we're allowed to refer to them as a name? SlapperDapper (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, I agree that it's a sensitive issue, and I don't pretend to understand all of the contours. To respond to just one issue, however—your comment that no need to speculate in the lead until Banksy confirms his/her identity—I don't think that discussion of Banksy's identity in the lead should hinge on Banksy's own statements. The overall question, I think, is what the reliable sources say. Given the newness of the Reuters report perhaps it's too early to highlight the identity in the lead, but I don't think the lack of a statement from Banksy necessarily means that is inappropriate to do so. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
This isn't guesswork or speculation. Reuters did an insanely comprehensive investigation which led to his discovery. They took confirmed info like his own manager's statement of his arrest which they tied back to Gunningham. Lazarides even admits ″“There is no Robin Gunningham,” Lazarides said when asked about the artist’s identity. “The name you’ve got I killed years ago,” he said of Robin Gunningham. Searching for him would be “a straight dead end.”″ David Jones, formerly known as Robin Gunningham is Banksy. Part of Banksy's allure was his anonymity, but this is wikipedia, a place for facts. The first sentence of this article should include Gunningham's name. Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Should identity be disputed?
User Randy_Kryn has performed multiple reverts regarding Banksy's identity. After the Reuters investigation, this shouldn't be
As noted in the prior thread:
1. The article states clearly that: "Banksy, born Robin Gunningham, later took the name David Jones." This is a trusted source and has confirmed the name by all reasonable journalistic standards.
2. This isn't guesswork or speculation. Reuters did an insanely comprehensive investigation which led to his discovery. They took confirmed info like his own manager's statement of his arrest which they tied back to Gunningham.
3. That something isn't confirmed by a person doesn't mean we don't have good enough reason to believe it true.
From the article:
The people and institutions who seek to shape social and political discourse are subject to scrutiny, accountability, and, sometimes, unmasking. Banksy’s anonymity – a deliberate, public-facing, and profitable feature of his work – has enabled him to operate without such transparency.
That should take precedence over the editor's argument that there's no need to speculate in the lead until Banksy confirms his/her identity.
This is my proposal for the new lead, which got reverted. I want to determine the best way to prevent an edit war. I believe a formal proposal or an RfC is unnecessary and too time-consuming given that this is a breaking news story. Bocanegris (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, the evidence provided by Reuters is conclusive and his identity is no longer reasonably in dispute. He may decline to comment on the Reuters claims, or even deny them, but that doesn't really mean anything. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- Seems I'm outwikivoted, and am in agreement that your point of view is valid. I was just saying that Wikipedia has now used a Reuters investigative confirmation as accurate enough to rename the article in the first mention. A move such as that, which I opposed, requires consensus, but I won't wikiargue over it. I removed the second explanatory sentence in the lead which, at that point, the identity was dominating the lead paragraph to the extent of not getting to Banksy's accomplishments for quite awhile. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's a mismatch now between the lead and the Identity section. The lead starts off with: Robin Gunningham (born 1974 or 1975[1]), legally named David Jones and commonly known by the pseudonym Banksy, is an... while the Identity section says: Banksy's name and identity remain unconfirmed and the subject of speculation. Some1 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- And I don't think even the Reuters article is positive about the current status of the David Jones rename, in which case it shouldn't be there. Even using the "found" name at first mention has been questionable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I honestly think the lead should return to the 16:50, March 14, 2026 version. I don't think we should state in wikivoice, in the first sentence, that "Banksy is Robin Gunningham, legally named David Jones" when the subject himself has not yet confirmed this. It's very likely that the Reuters report is correct about his real name, but without confirmation by Banksy himself or his team, I don't think we should be stating that that is his real name as if it's a confirmed fact. Some1 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- The Reuters article says of the Jones' name "Whether he still uses that name is unclear." which should be unclear enough to remove that name from the lead (have reverted its incorrect language 'current name'). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- I honestly think the lead should return to the 16:50, March 14, 2026 version. I don't think we should state in wikivoice, in the first sentence, that "Banksy is Robin Gunningham, legally named David Jones" when the subject himself has not yet confirmed this. It's very likely that the Reuters report is correct about his real name, but without confirmation by Banksy himself or his team, I don't think we should be stating that that is his real name as if it's a confirmed fact. Some1 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- And I don't think even the Reuters article is positive about the current status of the David Jones rename, in which case it shouldn't be there. Even using the "found" name at first mention has been questionable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's a mismatch now between the lead and the Identity section. The lead starts off with: Robin Gunningham (born 1974 or 1975[1]), legally named David Jones and commonly known by the pseudonym Banksy, is an... while the Identity section says: Banksy's name and identity remain unconfirmed and the subject of speculation. Some1 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Seems I'm outwikivoted, and am in agreement that your point of view is valid. I was just saying that Wikipedia has now used a Reuters investigative confirmation as accurate enough to rename the article in the first mention. A move such as that, which I opposed, requires consensus, but I won't wikiargue over it. I removed the second explanatory sentence in the lead which, at that point, the identity was dominating the lead paragraph to the extent of not getting to Banksy's accomplishments for quite awhile. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I've mentioned the discussion above at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Banksy's identity to request additional input. Some1 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- imo one of the two must change: either the section presenting the Reuters's investigation be reworded to be more certain, or the introduction be reworded to be less certain. i don't particularly care either way, but right now they give two different conclusion. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 16:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Just popping in to note that over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Banksy's identity, it's evident that there is no consensus to include this contentious material at this time. I have restored an earlier version which still includes the alleged identity, attributed to Reuters, as a temporary compromise, but my own preference would be to confine this discussion to the Identity section of the article body until such time as the reporting has been corroborated by independent sources and/or we see evidence that this reporting is consistently relied upon by other reliable sources. Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- That conversation is barely 12 hours old; there is no way to reach a consensus this soon. This is breaking news from a trusted source and has been relied upon by other reliable sources:
- - The New York Times
- - The Independent
- - The Times
- Unless a reliable source contests the information or a consensus against this is reached over time within the Wikipedia community, we should default to the established policies.
- As per Wikipedia:MoS:
For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym
. Bocanegris (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)- WP:BLPRESTORE, which is policy, trumps the Manual of Style, which is a guideline. The sources you cite do cover the Reuters report but they're careful to frame their reporting as "Reuters says". This does weigh in favor of inclusion, but we should be following them in attributing the allegation, rather than stating this in Wikivoice. Generalrelative (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. For example, the New York Times frames it like this: "The Reuters investigation identifies him as a man born Robin Gunningham". For now, this is how Wikipedia ought to do it. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- WP:BLPRESTORE, which is policy, trumps the Manual of Style, which is a guideline. The sources you cite do cover the Reuters report but they're careful to frame their reporting as "Reuters says". This does weigh in favor of inclusion, but we should be following them in attributing the allegation, rather than stating this in Wikivoice. Generalrelative (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Why must we reveal his identity?
Does it matter at all that Banksy does not want the identity to be disclosed? Something about personality rights? His anonimity is very much part of his brand, so revealing this is akin to Deadnaming. What good does it do? Do we really want to go there? His legal name is not relevant to anyone except law enforcement authorities wishing to prosecute him for vandalism, thus ending his artistic career. --Gerrit CUTEDH 13:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's all over the world news media, and not listing it here would be senseless; he's a public figure, whether he likes it or not. And for all we know, he may have changed his legal name or simply be living using aliases. — The Anome (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- We have not revealed his identity. We are simply including facts with trustworthy citations. Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- If you go to Google right now and type in "who", the first suggestion is "who is banksy", so a lot of people are searching for it. Clicking on it then gives you a carousel of about a dozen news articles, all published within the last 2 days, all stating his real name as claimed by Reuters. So his name is being exposed and shared to the world without any involvement from us, whether we include it here or not - we're actually kind of irrelevant here. – numbermaniac 03:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yet, at least two editors think Reuters is not reliable enough by itself and will not allow following Wikipedia conventions in cases like this (putting his real name first, then his pseudonym). Bocanegris (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Scott Alexander didn't want his full name revealed either, but the NYT published it, and now Wikipedia does too. To extend deadnaming to this, you could just as well extend it to any fact that someone might want suppressed, which of course we don't do -- "I don't like it" is not a concrete enough harm to justify suppression imo Miladragon3 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Proposed amendments to drafting in introduction
I cannot amend the article, but recommend that the sentence "Banksy has said that he was inspired by 3D, a graffiti artist and founding member of the musical group Massive Attack" be clarified to "Banksy has said that he was inspired by 3D, the pseudonym of Robert Del Naja, a graffiti artist and founding member of the musical group Massive Attack". Stephmparsons (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2026 (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:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2026 (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:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected request
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Banksy. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
In the intro and in the section Robin Gunningham under Identity, where it mentions his birth year, please add “1973 or 1974” as other sources say Gunningham, the top candidate, was born in 1973.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-artist-banksy-identity-robin-gunningham/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/art/artists/banksy-secret-life-exposed/ ~2026-17795-02 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)