Talk:Banksy

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)

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)

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)

So does everybody in the world have veto power over being named, or just Banksy? I think a lot of people would love to have the privileges you're allowing him to hold over his Wikipedia page. ~2026-36023-32 (talk) 09:45, 20 June 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)

Indeed of the main issues I have is that the "protect poor Banksy" Brigade is treating this as a privacy issue, as if Reuters were doxing Bob Ross, and not literally uncovering a vandal who may have to face prosecution after this.

'Wikipedia "DEADNAMES (!)" Scott Alexander in his article, against his wishes, because a primary source (The Literal New York Times) reported his real name'... but somehow we have to be very careful about Banksy's wishes because "we should play nice, like toddlers"?

Also, I'm getting tired of having this discussion divided across two pages... I have to doublepost this. Can the admins (not ex-admins) bring some order to this? And maybe put this to a vote so it can be settled for a good? Bocanegris (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bocanegris I might recommend changing the "brigade" word choice ~2026-19666-10 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 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'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)

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)

Scott Alexander Siskind published his own name in a book years before the NYT piece. You don't get to just hide facts from the public. SlapperDapper (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

This was already linked above, but it's kind of buried. So giving this its own subsection. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Banksy's identity. Unfortunately starting a discussion there without using the {{Please see}} template has kind of split this discussion in two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Reuters is a trusted source

For some reason, a small group of editors is ignoring that Reuters confirmed his identity and they are burying his real name in the Identity section, as if Reuters weren't a trusted source. It concerns me a bit that no one is pushing back against this. I've decided to make the correction one last time (adding his name to the lead), hoping to get support from those here who have spoken in favor of this. If I don't get it, and to avoid an edit war, I'll drop the matter and assume that trusted sources no longer mean anything. Bocanegris (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: It got reverted in minutes. As an ex-admin responded to this same message: It's a question of whether we want to out people or not. so I guess we should follow some policies and not others. After all, according to him, this is akin to 'deadnaming' Banksy.

I did all I could (you can read my previous arguments). I hope someone can fix this place eventually.

Good luck, guys. Bocanegris (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

We need to look to what trusted sources in general are writing. As I wrote above, 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. Please also see the BLPN discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Banksy's identity, and WP:BLPRESTORE. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

In Bocanegris' snarky ("I will assume that trusted sources no longer mean anything") comment above, they completely ignored the reasoned, policy-based comment from Herostratus on the BLP noticeboard:

"It's a question of whether we want to out people or not. My kindergarten teacher taught me to be nice to people, and I haven't learned otherwise yet.You know what's a poor argument? "Ah, all the other guys were setting fire to that bum anyway, so it didn't really make a difference that I joined in". WP:BLP -- which is a key, core policy -- says "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" [Emphasis added] and "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Note that it doesn't have an exception for "But if it's all over the internet already, screw the guy, write what you want". We can't be responsible for the actions of others. If other people want to be jerks in their quest for profitable eyeballs, we can't stop 'em. All that is given to us is to decide what we will do.

WP:IAR -- which is also a core policy, one of our founding Wikipedia:Five pillars, says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Not outing and deadnaming individual people improves the Wikipedia. Being jerks about it doesn't.

OK? I just invoked two core, key policies. They supersede any essays, guidelines, or (perforce secondary) policies you can dig up. So if you all want to argue on the rules, you lose.You can ignore fundamental policies if you want to I guess, but don't pretend you have the policy high ground. You don't."

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

As it stands, no identified name is mentioned in the introduction. Given a lack of confirmation I can understand not, like, opening with "David Jones, known as Banksy...", but is there any objection to saying something along the lines of "He has never publicly confirmed his identity, though a 2026 Reuters investigation found him to go by the name David Jones as of 2022" in the intro? (Coming here from BLPN) ~2026-19666-10 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The Independent is a trusted source

For some reason, a small group of editors is ignoring that The Independent confirmed his identity and they are burying his real name in the Identity section, as if The Independent weren't a trusted source. It concerns me a bit that no one is pushing back against this.

See Banksy: 8 signs Massive Attack's Robert Del Naja is mystery artist

The alert reader will no doubt have noticed that I simply copied the title and first paragraph of the section above that asks us to assume without evidence that when Reuters prints speculation at must be The Truth. Why not pick The Independent as your trusted source and insist that The Truth is that Banksy's real name is Robert Del Naja?

Or we could, you know, just have a section tilted "Identity" why covers Reuters' speculation, The Indepedent's speculation, The Sunday Times' speculation, etc. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Instead of being POINTy, you can read that article to see The Independent never confidently asserts that Banksy is Del Naja and read my reply above to see that I'm not advocating a mention in the first sentence. ~2026-19666-10 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

(For context, Guy Macon's reply comes from this reply to a comment of mine at BLPN) ~2026-19666-10 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Either this argument is in bad faith or you don't understand how journalism works, which would actually explain your whole stance on this affair.

The Independent published a listicle of "signs" that point to a popular theory and is very careful not to actually state they know who Banksy is.

Reuters published the results of an investigation, including the following quote:

"Banksy, born Robin Gunningham, later took the name David Jones."

This single quote should be reason enough not just to put it in the lead, but to state it in wikivoice as his primary name, as I tried to do but was reverted twice.

You fell for clickbait and now Wikipedia is suffering for it. Bocanegris (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I do think that Reuters being the only source for the statement of fact is a good reason to hold off on the bold-name-in-first-sentence (I think a mention added to the end of the second sentence, He has never publicly confirmed his identity, makes sense), in the spirit of being cautious with BLP ~2026-19666-10 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

RFC about including Banksy's identity in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not to include has emerged relatively quickly and is unlikely to change. (I find that the strongest argument comes from Tepkunset involving sourcing and BLP issues.) Furthermore, there is a weak consensus to keep the status quo. (non-admin closure) I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 20:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Should Banksy’s (newly exposed) identity, “Robbie Gunningham,” be included in the lead? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: See discussions above and this discussion on the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Banksy's identity
• Articles discussing Banksy’s identity are here: Reuters, The New York Times, The Independent. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I am kind of neutral on whether the identity should be in the lede (I lean no, actually), I think the section on his identity is undue weight on that aspect. Banksy's identity is not the most significant part of his notability, and making this the first section of the article makes little sense both from the DUE perspective, and also is just bad organization for an encyclopedia about a major artist. In fact Banksy's anonymity is arguably a more important feature of his personal than his identity per se. Also, it smacks of recentism/tabloid coverage. Just because it's the latest reveal about the artist doesn't make it the most important thing that must be covered first. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• If the question is "should the Reuters investigation and this identity be mentioned in the lead near the bottom, with his response included", then I abstain. I'm not particularly opposed to it, but I also don't think it's needed. If the question, however, is "should the identity be in the first sentence in wikivoice", then my answer is No, based on my arguments from BLPN and the closed bad RfC. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to relitigate a response from a closed discussion, so I won't respond here to Riposte97's objection (I obviously hold disagreements with what they said, but I won't go into what exactly). NewBorders (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Also not 100% sure that the Robin Gunningham name needs to be in the lead section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm inclined to keep the article in it's current form (i.e. "Robin Gunningham" is not mentioned in the lead). The existing wording, that Banksy "is a pseudonymous England-based street artist [...] [who] has never publicly confirmed his identity" is still accurate. The inclusion of the Robin Gunningham subsection under Banksy#Identity is sufficient (for now). -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment, the current form is fine, so no. It covers the guesswork (remember, Banksy's spokespeople deny the supposed identity) and the career. Similar to Satoshi Nakamoto, where media outlets have given a real name and the person has denied the reports. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: The Reuters report was strong and widely repeated; added to that, the denials by Banksy's people have been fairly milquetoast. I would thus lean towards inclusion in the lead with slight cautionary language (e.g., "widely identified as" or similar). Like Randy Kryn, I thought of this issue when reading the NYT' piece on Satoshi today, but I had the opposite reaction. That piece is intriguing, but entirely circumstantial. The Reuters piece requires syllogistic reasoning, but the pieces fit (e.g., Banksy's manager said Banksy was arrested for graffitiing a billboard; Robin Gunningham signed a statement to police admitting to graffitiing the billboard; ergo, Banksy is Robin G.). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• No, certainly not in the lede and actually not anywhere in the article. I've made my arguments already, those basically being no to outing, no to deadnaming, no per the core policies WP:BLP (which tells us to be vigilant in protecting a subject's privacy) and WP:IAR (as it doesn't improve the Wikipedia or the Wikipedia's standing and success by outing, deadnaming, and being generally jerks), regardless of whatever this or that subsidiary rule may say. Nobody has refuted the invocation of these two core, foundational poiicies, probably because they can't. It's not a vote, and policy comes first. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes: There is a reason almost every BLP includes the person's full name. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". After the Reuters investigation, many reliable newspapers reported Banksy's name as Robin Gunningham, including the articles from NYT and The Independent that are linked above, CNN, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and NDTV. Banksy's spokespeople have not denied the report, neither has Banksy himself (WSJ states: "Banksy's company, Pest Control Office, declined to confirm or deny Reuters' conclusion, issuing a statement in which the artist 'has decided to say nothing.'"). I agree with Usernameunique in how Banksy's name(s) should be presented in the lead. KnowDeath (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment:. Yeah, in my original comment, I leaned "no", but acknowledge that there are strong arguments the other way. More concerning to me is the prominence of placement of "Identity" in the actual article. Compare Satoshi Nakamoto, for example, which contains background and what the person is notable for before the section on their identity. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Early close? There appears to be consensus to keep it out of the lede. Is anyone opposed to requesting an early close? Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• No not in the lead. Per WP:BLP, content “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy.” As this is not fully confirmed, the conservative approach is to refrain from including it, particularly in the lead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepkunset (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.