Talk:Benjamin Zephaniah

"caught up" in riots - clarify
I see it's already tagged, but just bringing it to the page. The source provided uses the same vague "caught up" phrasing. Did Zephaniah riot in the 1980s, was he a victim or just a witness? The quote "They happened around me" leans to witness, but "I was a big protestor, not just against racism but also apartheid." suggests activism, though the phrasing is not clear that he's referring to the same place and time.

Any other sources would be gratefully received. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Animal rights and veganism
He was an honorary patron of The Vegan Society, Viva! (Vegetarians' International Voice for Animals), and EVOLVE! Campaigns, and was an animal rights advocate.

There is a broken link in reference 45. The current link to the Ambassador page is www.vegansociety.com/society/whos-involved/ambassadors.

He presented The Vegan Society's video on veganism "TRUTH OR DAIRY: who, what, where, when, how and why vegan" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il20eie8tgg in 1994 and wrote the song "Love the Life" for the society in celebration of World Vegan Month in 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8UfTJoFr9w Vhist1847 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Linking in lede
I have again restored the original linking in the lede.

This was originally replaced, with the edit summary "ce/fmt, De-link common terms (by script) per MOS:OVERLINK", which includes no justification for removing them.

It has since been removed with edit summaries referring to WP:NOTBROKEN, which does not support replacing the original links.

Unfortunately, while I have ben writing this comment, the same editor is now edit warring to remove them, with an edit summary including "take to talk", despite not having done so themself. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The original linking was removed (actually not removed since the unpiped links target the same pages) because it was completely unnecessary to pipe these links, per WP:NOTBROKEN. It says specifically There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace with., which is exactly what you have done, here and here. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in NOTBROKEN which supports your original change. That change was unnecessary and is disputed, and was reverted as such, restoring the status quo. You have failed to discuss, much less give any valid reason for making, it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the edits are supported by WP:NOTBROKEN. There is absolutely no need to pipe  as ,   as   or   as  . They all link to the same pages and, according to the guideline, a piped link is completely unnecessary. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you will be able to cite the part of NOTBROKEN which says it is OK to make bulk changes like  to  ?  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "bulk" about it, the changes were consistent with the guideline, while your undoing of them wasn't. WP:ASTONISH does not apply in the case of . &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've restored the status quo while discussion proceeds. I'm not clear how:
 * the change to the town link complies with MOS:GEOLINK
 * removing piped links for redirects doesn't violate WP:AINTBROKE
 * NOTBROKEN supports a mass campaign of changing existing piped links to redirects. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AINTBROKE is an essay, not a guideline. WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline. It's obviously ridiculous to pipe these links without good reason, which Andy has consistently failed to provide, only having misinterpreted WP:ASTONISH. Why pipe  when  redirects to veganism, and so on? It's absurd. The idea that  is not an argument I've ever made. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct, as AINTBROKE is a way of collaborating and not something that purports to be policy. However, it does very cleanly speak to this situation: "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it." I'm also not sure these pipes are "obviously ridiculous" or we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-)
 * "Mass campaign" refers to the script-assisted edits; perhaps "mass" was too strong a word for ten of those edits in your last thousand. Still, the heart of the question remains unanswered. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Except it "fix" a problem since, per WP:NOTBROKEN, Redirects can indicate possible future articles (see ).. It's entirely possible ,  ,   could become separate articles from Veganism, Animal rights movement and Parliament of the United Kingdom, for example (especially the last one, seeing as  redirects to the same article  links to). Anarchism is considered, per WP:COMMONTERMS, to be too vague a link, so a link to Anarchism in the United Kingdom appears more appropriate in this instance, since the subject is from the United Kingdom. Per Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form., piping   and   just seems entirely unnecessary, and the latter can be argued to be contrary to the spirit of WP:ASTONISH given that "alternative vote" is not a part of the target article's title. Furthermore, Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. and If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed. As such the systematic "fixing of redirects" may eradicate useful information which can be used to help decide on the "best" article title. are also worthy considerations in favour of removing these pipes. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Tone
The wording of especially the lead section doesn't give off a neutral tone.

The article is undoubtedly well done, but, as I think someone else has pointed out before, it sounds like a eulogy.

Needs heavy rewording.

25eanglin (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * By all means make improvements. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But I see you've now entirely removed "Described as "the people's laureate" by the Birmingham Mail" from the lead section? I think that's a perfectly fair claim, which provides a useful summary of his work, and is supported by the content in the article main body. So I think it is perfectly appropriate for inclusion in the lead section, sorry. Would be interested to see what others think. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Those edits are a bit preference based.
 * I would also be interested to see what others think, though! 25eanglin (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine. Let's wait and see. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section's area regarding his awards is necessary, but it takes the entirety of it.
 * The lead section should - I as I think - summarize the person's life, rather than giving a promotional message about how cool they are. - 25eanglin (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)