Talk:Banksy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Graffiti, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to graffiti art, graffiti artists and all aspects of graffiti culture. Click Here for more information

Banksy has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

The paragraph on Banksy's criminal status flows better after it has been spelled out what he stands for....

This article could be improved by omitting, or at least segregating, matters of opinion from matters of fact.

Contents 1 1974? 2 Commercial Work 3 Appearance on Community Channel 4 Banksy on Channel 4 news 5 Real name 6 PoV 7 Toning down the POV a bit more 8 wikiproject graffiti 9 citation needed for quote from banksy book 10 pictures of banksy 11 Using references in a WP article 12 How about some more facts? 13 The Paris Hilton stunt 14 Disneyland 15 Bristol graffiti 16 GA:Passed 17 Bradd Pitt 18 If not Banksy, who? 19 zoo quote & more 20 Conspiracy? 21 YouTube links

[edit] 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)^{[citation needed]} " to go until someone can give a citation.Mujinga 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] Banksy on Channel 4 news

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. Dmtr iii 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bradd 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.

[edit] If not Banksy, who?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)