This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Nonviolence (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nonviolence, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NonviolenceWikipedia:WikiProject NonviolenceTemplate:WikiProject NonviolenceNonviolence articles Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Hunger strike was copied or moved into Guantánamo Bay hunger strikes with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 29 January 2024 for a period of one week.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MalachiteGuy1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. It looks like much of the information that might want to live on this page is already at fasting. Should we make this a redirect there and then clean up fasting so it's all nice and pretty? --Dante Alighieri 08:55 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I dont agree with that Dante, fasting is different than Hunger strike, a hunger strike is "protest" oriented and has more political and moral meaning attached to it. while fasting can be seen as purely religious. OR evm Hunger Strike can be categorized as a special type of fasting where in a protest comes into picture. Hunger Strike should definitely be separate from fasting, so I think. --Girish 19:10, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but please note that fasting is not always "purely religious", it can also be done as part of a cleanse or detox for health reasons. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added these things, which I found in David Beresford's "Ten Men Dead." They give an early, brief history of the practice. I added citations to the book I got it from; I mainly paraphrased what was said in that book.

--L.A.F. 08:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The early history in Ireland doesn't really make any sense. Not only is the grammar imprecise, I am unable to determine what information is actually being conveyed. This needs to be rewritten. Marshaul (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Akbar Ganji's section removed without any discussions?--Sina 22:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the history of hunger strikes in Turkey, since the existant information was very superficial, hence leading inaccuracies. I can't claim my edit is perfectly correct, since I have mostly relied on my memory and quick internet search, but I hope it will initiate an effort to create a correct section. I tried to be objective, but I am generally biased by my left-wing/liberal POV, so I will appreciate neutralization as well. However, please no Turkish nationalist, extreme leftist, Kurdish separatist, or European anti-Turkish propaganda. Thank you. AldirmaGonul 05:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to be not so self serving, I really think it will be useful to add an article I wrote on the subject. It is the only academic article which tries to answer the question: why people go on hunger strikes? It also answers some of the questions raised here. If someone were to include some portions of it, it will improve the quality of your entry. Here is the citation.

2005 Israel S. Waismel-Manor “Striking Differences: Hunger Strikes in Israel and the United States.” Social Movement Studies 4:3, 281-300.

Many thanks,

Israel IsraelWaismelManor 14:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this page focuses more on who has done a hunger strike then the mechanics of how a hunger strike works. I'm interested in knowing if any eating is allowed (such as the Ramadan fast), or if any sustenance (ie juice and vitamins) is allowed, or the details of what it entails. Neither this page, nor the fasting page hold this information. -- garlic : November 21, 2005

Last summer's hunger strikers in Guantanamo generally started skipping a single meal one week, then skipping two meals the next week, and finally all meals the third week. The camp authorities didn't count anyone unless they had skipped all their meals for three consecutive days. During the first hunger strike the number of hunger striker who camp authorities felt required hospitalization overwhelmed the camp hospital, and some of the detainees had to be transferred to the base's main hospital.

FWIW the camp authorities and the detainees give wildly varying accounts of how the feeding tubes are inserted into the detainees. The camp authorities say they are always inserted by trained medical personnel, who insert them as humanely as possible. Detainees have reported at least one doctor inserting the tubes brutally, wiggling the tube brutally, once it was installed, until the detainee started to vomit up blood. Detainees have described the hated IRF inserting the tubes. They have described the IRF removing tubes by holding the detainees hair in one hand, and the end of the tube in another, and then yanking the tube out by making a big scissors motion. Detainees describe the use of tubes the width of a finger, which are extremely painful. They describe guards removing tubes from detainees, then cramming the same tube down another detainees nose, while it was still covered in the blood and vomit of the earlier detainees. -- Geo Swan 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, While trying to be not so self serving, I really think it will be useful to add an article I wrote on the subject and for someone to insert some of its paragraphs and findings into the main entry. It is the only academic article which tries to answer the question: why people go on hunger strikes? It will improve the quality of your entry. Here is the citation.

2005 Israel S. Waismel-Manor “Striking Differences: Hunger Strikes in Israel and the United States.” Social Movement Studies 4:3, 281-300.

Many thanks,

Israel

IsraelWaismelManor 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be reduced and most of the info moved to a main-article? If so which? Regardless extensive "cites" should be used. Rich Farmbrough 13:16 7 March 2006 (UTC).

My 1995 Swedish edition of the Guinness Book of Records says:

The world record in hunger strike (without forced feeding) is 95 days, which was set from August 11 to November 12, 1920 by John and Peter Crowley, Thomas Donovan, Michael Burke, Michael O'Reilly, Christopher Upton, John Power, Joseph Kenny and Seán Hennessy at the prison of Cork, Ireland.

The article on Terence MacSwiney says:

On October 20, 1920, he fell into a coma and died five days later after 78 days on hunger strike, making his the longest hunger strike in Irish history.

The article on David Blaine says (on why he would not be included in future editions of the Book of Records):

[The Guinness Book of Records] said it did not wish to encourage fasting records and that in any case the IRA hunger strikers Bobby Sands (who died after 66 days without food) and Laurence McKeown (who went into a coma after 70 days and was then force-fed) had already lasted longer unfed than Blaine did.

Does anybody have any clarity on who of these actually went the longest without food and what the criteria really are? —Gabbe 07:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terence MacSwiney died after 74 days not 78. Kieran Doherty died after 71 days, Kevin Lynch died after 71 days.--Padraig (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would love to know who did the longest Hunger Strike of all time. I'm not sure about the 1st one above in Cork. It implies that all 9 (presumably) IRA men died on the one day or they went off the fast on the one day, after 94 days. El Gringo 12:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did go off the hunger strike all on the one day after the President of the Irish Republic (as declared by the Provisional government) Arthur Griffith appealed to them. Amazingly the nine men survived though all suffered health problems for the rest of their lives. Coolavokig (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this- [1]- CNN article quoting a Guinness Book of Records official, 'He pointed out that the longest hunger strike ended in 1973 after 385 days when Dennis Galer Goodwin protested his innocence in Wakefield Prison, West Yorkshire, of a rape charge. He was fed by tube orally. The lengthiest period spent without solid food was 382 days when Angus Barbieri lived on tea, coffee, soda water and vitamins in Maryfield Hospital, Dundee in the mid Sixties. He lost more than 20 stone.' 385 days without food? That could not possibly be right, or could it? El Gringo 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to El Gringo's comment, the Irish strikers didn't die (I think three might have), the strike was ended at the 94 day point I believe. I happen to know at least one of the the strikers survived many years after the strike. TostitosAreGross 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them did- Bobby Sands being the most famous one.--L.A.F. 05:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The longest hunger strike was 116 days by Bhagat Singh and Dutt, resisting force feeding and only on water I think. Well there were a few to joint the hunger strike some of them gave up and few even died. 116 days is for sure wikipedia has info about this guy ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.141 (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three-day glucose store (uncited) information here conflicts with the Physiological effects section of Fasting (also uncited). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.194.187.135 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how about the statement that for the first ten thousand days the body burns glucose?(!) I'm no doctor or health specialist but even the same paragraph then states that people have died after 75 days. --Wgarciamachmar (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we should be able to find these in medical references fairly easily. I'm surprised how long it's been left uncited, and how poorly referenced the related articles are. I'm having a hard time finding anything with simple searches though. I'd guess we need to just look directly for medical references rather than use general search engines. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hightlight the hypocrisy of the West supporting the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009 but not supporting people who fled from the torture in Iranian prisons afterwards.

Ignoring the misspelling of highlight, this line seems very biased in favour of the protesters. Wikipedia is meant to take a neutral standpoint, so this must be changed. Kookas (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted (along with NPOV / recent templates), it is too recent and needs to have broader coverage and impact to be notable enough. - RoyBoy 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tags, as I don't see any effort to address the concerns. --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can we rewrite this section so it isn't a WP:COATRACK with WP:RECENTISM problems? How about we apply WP:LIST, and come up with some clear inclusion criteria? --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like for a hunger strike to be listed it should be highly notable and have notable impact.

A listed hunger strike should briefly summarize the details from the related article. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the section heading to "Notable instances" to help with the recentism problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started removing entries where the hunger strike has no notable impact. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent concerns with the inclusion criteria, I think it's helpful to also note that this criteria helps us avoid WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT (especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:NOTDIARY) problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC):[reply]

As the first non-Ronz commenter here... I think inclusion criteria is the same here as for any WP article. We do not need different rules, we already have WP:V, WP:RS :) - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have all the other policies and guidelines. Let's not ignore them.

Note there is a great deal of discussion on this criteria, including RfCs. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over the RfC below there was a consensus to make this article about the concept of the hunger strike and to split notable strikes off into a separate article: "There is a clear consensus for the creation of a separate list of notable hunger strike with the proposed inclusion criteria. Armbrust The Homonculus 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)" That is the only consensus I see here. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not important?

Israel

− In 2012 approximately 1800 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons began a mass hunger strike. Israel holds approximately 4,500 Palestinian prisoners, of which about 310 are being held in administrative detention which has been described as detention without trial. Four of the hunger strikers have been without food for over two months. In May 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the appeals of two of the prisoners who had appealed against their being imprisoned "without charge or trial."^[1][2] Padres Hana (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable about it? What impact has the strike had in a historical context that makes it deserving of being presented along side of historically important hunger strikes? --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ronz - anything that goes on in the middle east is automatically historic, important, deserving, etc. and certainly you can't argue with the RS. but, in the big picture, you are probably right. so - padres, why not wait a few days more and let's see if it gets more coverage, etc. Soosim (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against the source, I'm applying the inclusion criteria for the list and putting it in the perspective of trying to make the list encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I seem a little surprised with your objection to the inclusion of Palestinian hunger strikers, given that Cornish campaigner Michael Chappell is included purely on the basis of a single local news report and a BBC blog. The Palestinain hunger strikers have received far far more coverage, and have far more international importance than Mr Chappell. Dlv999 (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the concerns.

Thanks for pointing out an entry that should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comparison of relative notability google search for "Guantánamo Bay hunger strikes" gives 28,900 results. Google search for "Palestinian hunger strikers" gives over 500,000 results. I am interested to know what evidence based inclusion criteria you are applying to come to your conclusions. Dlv999 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Guantánamo Bay hunger strikes did not mention any notable impact, I've removed it. The main article doesn't mention any either.

Thanks for pointing this out. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree per WP:NOTNEWS--Shrike (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sarsak ends 92-day hunger strike in release deal - notable incident. May not be notable from a US perspective, but it definitely was there in the region. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a notorious wiki contributor, but it shocked me not to find anything here about the palestinian hunger strike. It is one of the biggest and longest hunger strike in our modern history i guess. Akram Rikhawi ended his hunger strike today after changing his realease date. 102 days! notable impact? I guess you cannot feel the impact when you did not eat anything in prison for 100 days demanding freedom. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10348127 . this is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxybeirut (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinian hunger strike in the Israelis prisons was inspired by pervious experiences mentioned in this page (Gandhi for example), so it is but consistent to include such a contemporary experience as a witness and a living proof for this nonviolent tool for expression. The United Nations, Red Cross and many other NGOs around the world along with some countries were concerned about the Palestinian hunger strike and they intervened directly to fulfill the striker’s rights. I hope nobody deletes the paragraph added concerning the Palestinian hunger strike because simply it is a living proof now as we speak of the main idea here which is the “Hunger Strike”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirutmontreal (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it back to emphasize the notable aspects. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you put the Palestinian hunger strike paragraph in the "legal situations" section by mistake. So i will take it back to notable. also, im re-adding the United Nations and International Red Cross concern about the condition of the hunger strikers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxybeirut (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2012‎

Am glad you didn’t remove the paragraph. I still have a small comment regarding the parts removed; I think it’s really essential to include the court decisions and the United Nations reaction to this hunger strike, by doing so the credibility of the paragraph would be based on international legal and humanitarian organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beirutmontreal (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2012‎

I meant it for the Recent instances (since 2000) section. Sorry about that.

I suggest a separate article on the topic to cover the details. We're getting into minutia that should be covered elsewhere but currently isn't, suggesting that this section of this article is being used to get around relevant policies and guidelines that are being better enforced in the other, related articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section about the Palestinian hungerstrikes was extended considering that, as a whole, it's one of the most important series of hungerstrikes in worlds history in terms of A. The number of participants (2000 people participated in the 28th day hungerstrike in April-May 2012) B. The length of some of the hungerstrikes of individual persons (reaching as long as 123 or 125 days) C. The achievements of the hungerstrikers as far as it concern prison policies and liberation of prisoners. Some editors prefered to remove the whole section. I made a different article about Palestinian Hunger Strikers (2011-2012) and put at the Hunger Strike article, only a small part of it, a summary. Still, Ronz prefered to delete the whole summmary. I insist that this is not the right way to treat one of the most important hungerstrike in world's history. If someone is deleting the whole incident is proving that is biased. Hamish2011 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Hamish2011Hamish2011 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz reverted my addition of Abdulhadi al-Khawaja's hunger strike, because -according to him/her- it did not meet inclusion criteria. This strike received international attention and is covered in many reliable sources. I would like to know the inclusion criteria. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting no answer here, I've re-added al-Khawaja, this time with 14 references. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunger_strike#Inclusion_criteria_for_recent_instances_section (I've renamed the section so it is easier to find. There's little discussion actually and I'd been meaning to note WP:NOTDIARY at some point.)

Media coverage does not suffice. We're asking for notable impact of the strike. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus above, just your suggestions. Media attention essentially defines the notability of the strike. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media attention defines the strike as just another strike. One of a great many. What's notable about it besides that it happened?

The consensus is based upon multiple policies. Dismissing them without addressing those policies will not change consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the current text says so. However there is more into this such as being "the largest Danish consular effort ever" [2]. I'm off now, I'll expand the part later to reflect its importance. Till then you can take a look at Bahrain Thirteen or the person's article to help you understand this. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not notable, nor does it even begin to compare with the other entries. Maybe in the future this recent news event will turn out to be the beginning of something much more important to his or others' lives. Currently its mention appears to be just soapboxing a recent event. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see any criteria other than your own personal interpretation of what is notable and what is not (the guy lost 1/3 of his weight, nearly died and Denmark efforts to release him which he holds its nationality were described by the Foreign Minister as "the largest Danish consular effort ever"). Notability in Wikipedia is defined by reliable sources coverage of the topic, however there are articles like List of events named massacres which have their own inclusion criteria, which is clearly displayed on the top of the talk page and is essentially dependent on what media reports not how many people died or other personal interpretation. If you're still not convinced, we can always get a third opinion. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I still fail to see any criteria other than your own personal interpretation"... I've discussed the concerns and solution at some length now, supported by multiple policies. The inclusion criteria has been in place for some time and appears to work well.

If there are entries that are questionable, please point them out.

Given the lack of discussion on this talk page about the inclusion criteria, and this article being about hunger strikes in general rather, I've held off on incorporating the inclusion criteria into the two lists that this article contains. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone other than you agree to the inclusion criteria that you claim is based on Wikipedia policies? (i.e. is there is consensus? and where?) Is there any explanation of what is within it and what is not? All what I see is vague terms and citations of almost random policies and all that is by one person without consensus. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

In the first place, there must be criteria of inclusion, and if the list included every successful single person strike, it definitely would become unreadable. The current criteria seem absolutely reasonable to me, and I find this particular revert absolutely obvious and justified. That said, I would suggest to separate the particular events into a standalone list (sortable table) and to define criteria via RfC.— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 110-day hunger strike drawing a barrage of international coverage and various reactions is "absolutely obvious and justified" not to be included? Here's why I think it should be included:

• The person undergoing it; Abdulhadi al-Khawaja is already very famous. He was described by Index on Censorship as one of the best-known human rights activists in the world [3].
• The hunger strike went for a very long period; 110 days and was labeled "Death or Freedom".
• The international reactions were strong, especially those by Denmark who sought to transfer him. Other reactions included a number of states, UN and human rights NGOs. For instance:

1. "over 100 NGOs who have previously signed a letter calling for the release of all Bahraini human rights defenders" [4],
2. "Four United Nations Special Rapporteurs demanded immediate release of Abdulhadi al-Khawaja" [5],
3. "Jeppe Kofod, the Foreign policy spokesperson asked the Danish parliament to discuss possible sanctions on Bahrain" [6],
4. "Eight parties in the Danish parliament appealed to king of Bahrain to release Abdulhadi al-Khawaja" [7],
5. "UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called for Bahrain to consider transferring Alkhawaja to Denmark for medical treatment" [8],
6. "United States expressed concern for Alkhawaja's well-being and called on the Bahraini government to "consider urgently all available options to resolve his case"" [9].
7. The rest can be seen here and here.

• The hunger strike forced the government to order a retrial for al-Khawaja and another 12 leading opposition activists, who received up to life sentences by a special military court.
• Media coverage of the story is huge, this is a very good measure for notability. I can probably find hundreds of news articles about it from different outlets from many countries all-over the world. The BBC by it self covered it in at least 14 stories: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the notability of al-Khawaja's hunger strike is as much as or more than those of Akbar Ganji and Swami Nigamanand. What more? those two sections are lacking sources, the latter without any sources at all. Just because the initial entry that I posted wasn't comprehensive, doesn't mean this shouldn't be included. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, there are quite a lot of hunger strikes out there, and still quite a lot of them are highly visible events, noted by multiple reliable sources. Just so much that this article would blow up if threshold of inclusion will be set to this particular hunger strike. Indeed, this event is worth mention on Wikipedia, simply not in this article. As long as this living person has his own article, this hunger strike is better covered there. P.S.: thank you for ((talkback)), but I have this page on my watchlist, so you don't need to bother with notifying me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand, but aren't we setting the threshold higher than needed? Wouldn't this put Akbar Ganji, Swami Nigamanand and possibly Anna Hazare into discussion? The first; Akbar Ganji staged two hunger strikes, the first 12 days and the latter 50-60 days getting two important reactions, one from an Iranian Nobel Prize winner and the US. Swami Nigamanand fasted five days longer than al-Khawaja,^{[citation needed]} but died with no notable reactions or impact mentioned. Anna Hazare staged a 12-day hunger strike, yet he got widespread support all over the counrty^{[citation needed]} and then won MPs approval for his anti-corruption legislation.

I'm not saying those hunger strikes are not notable, but to say that hunger strike of al-Khawaja is less notable is what I can't understand. The reason I included it in the first place was after seeing those hunger strikes mentioned. This is because last time when I asked for 3O, the guy left without further comments. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, in my opinion all of the particular cases should be removed from this page. The very title of "Recent instances (since 2000)" flies in face of WP:NOT#NEWS, and choosing most notable hunger strikes requires enormous amount of original research and would certainly violate WP:NPOV. That's why I suggest a comprehensive list of notable events with criteria carefully discussed there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. We can also check history to restore many of the notable hunger strikes removed earlier. Do you have any idea about how should we choose the inclusion criteria? Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is my proposal for the inclusion criteria, which will be put in a sortable table. Let's first discuss it here then when we have a solid proposal call for RfC.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a person or group of people underwent a hunger strike.
2. Hunger striker(s) and/or their hunger strike must pass Wikipedia threshold for notability (i.e. have an article).

Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first criteria is assumed by the second (or any other meaningful criteria I'd guess).

This could be interpreted to mean that the only strikes we list have their own articles. There is wide consensus for this when no other criteria is given, but what would that leave us with in this case? --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Hunger strike occasion may have an article per WP:EVENT, so these criteria equal to no list at all. Furthermore, even if there are hunger strikes passing WP:EVENT, they are most likely to be described in another article.

I would suggest making a standalone list, where coverage in multiple sources with no strong geographic ties to the place of events is the only criterion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, strike the second. What do you mean by a standalone list? A new article or just a separate section? As for the criteria how about just this: Inclusion in this list is based solely on coverage in multiple reliable sources with no strong geographic ties to the place of events that a person or group of people underwent a hunger strike. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By standalone list I mean WP:SAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand is that you suggest we change this article into a list (chronological list with good prose on top). I find the idea good and we might as well go for FL. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing the problems that this article has had because of the lists, creating a stand-alone-list article would just make the problems worse. We have a working inclusion criteria here. Let's improve it and follow up on the comments about the "Recent instances (since 2000)" section). --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this as explained above is that "choosing most notable hunger strikes requires enormous amount of original research and would certainly violate WP:NPOV." Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's definitely a legitimate concern. Whether or not it actually applies is another matter. A large number of concerns have been brought up, most of which I believe do apply based upon my experience trying to maintain this article. We don't simply dismiss all the concerns that do apply over one that may or may not. Perhaps we need to discuss the application of the current criteria before we throw it out? --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current doesn't work. It will just force us to return to the first square. Why include this and that and not include this and that who is/are more notable. See my comments on 12:16 pm, 8 September 2012 and 6:34 pm, 8 September 2012. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"12:16 pm, 8 September 2012" and "6:34 pm". I can't find these in this talk page history nor in your contributions anywhere. I'm assuming 09:16 and 15:34...

I believe it works. Rather it hasn't been applied uniformly across this article. I've used it to trim the most problematic entries, and against new entries which almost always have WP:COATRACK and WP:RECENTISM problems. I wouldn't object to the entire "Recent instances (since 2000)" being removed, though it's unclear whether the Palestinian strikes should be kept. I would object to any change in criteria that doesn't address the WP:COATRACK and WP:RECENTISM problems.--Ronz (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I have my preferences to show time in GMT+3. I'm not familiar with WP:COATRACK (BTW, both are essays, not policies), but reading it now I don't see anything it has to do with here. I'd worry more about those entries with no or few citations. The list would include all instances of hunger strikes, not just the recent. I'm not suggesting to trim or remove, but to include all those covered in several reliable sources (with no strong geographic ties to the place of events) in one list. This is much better solution than using our own criteria to decide which are notable and which are not. Anyway, I guess it is best to call for a RfC now since I think we have a somewhat good criteria. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then you're saying that if undue the stricter criteria, it's going to prevent the problems what were occurring earlier when the same criteria you're suggesting was in place? Seems utter nonsense, and once again ignores the problems and concerns here. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this article should not go into great detail on the matter, and it's not clear if it should be listed at all. See the previous discussion on this.

agreed. Soosim (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section about the Palestinian hungerstrikes was extended considering that, as a whole, it's one of the most important series of hungerstrikes in worlds history in terms of A. The number of participants (2000 people participated in the 28th day hungerstrike in April-May 2012) B. The length of some of the hungerstrikes of individual persons (reaching as long as 123 or 125 days) C. The achievements of the hungerstrikers as far as it concern prison policies and liberation of prisoners. Some editors prefered to remove the whole section. I made a different article about Palestinian Hunger Strikers (2011-2012) and put at the Hunger Strike article, only a small part of it, a summary. Still, Ronz prefered to delete the whole summmary. I insist that this is not the right way to treat one of the most important hungerstrike in world's history. If someone is deleting the whole incident is proving that is biased.Hamish2011 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Hamish2011Hamish2011 (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we're not even sure it's important enough to list at all. Even if that were resolved, there's absolutely no reason to include anything in this article beyond a short summary. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International, which is by far the biggest (3 million members and supporters), most important and most INDEPENDENT (no money from governments) human rights NGOs, has issued a large number of press releases and urgent actions about the Palestinian hunger strikers the recent months. This is the most objective proof about the importance and impact of this collective hungerstrike. Hamish2011 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Hamish2011Hamish2011 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, very objective. --Jethro B 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As seen from the previous discussion, there isn't any consensus that it should even be here. CERTAINLY, we're not going to list the names of ten different hunger strikers, unlike how the rest of the article is structured, which is more general information. The fact that there's a large number of hunger strikers (is there an RS that says it's the largest??) doesn't mean it's notable, just means there's a lot of prisoners upset they have 3G and not 4G. --Jethro B 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fyi - amnesty receives gov't funding: AI did receive grants from the UK Department for International Development,^[1] the European Commission,^[2] the United States State Department^[3][4] and other governments^[5][6]

The fact that Jethro B doesn´t consider Amnesty International as objective is the proof that the motive of his intervention is not to the improvement of wikipedia articles, but to promote his personal political views. Amnesty International is a pioneer human rights organization. And by far, the biggest one.

Amnesty International on palestinian hungerstrikers in recent months:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/israel-must-hospitalize-or-release-palestinian-hunger-striker-verge-death--0

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/047/2012/en/c4417158-179c-406b-9276-088d3b69052a/mde150472012en.html

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/palestinian-hunger-strikers-detained-israel-must-be-treated-humanely-2012-08-09

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/israel-s-release-palestinian-footballer-shows-need-end-unjust-detention-wit

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/palestinian-hunger-striker-verge-death-must-be-admitted-hospital-or-release

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/028/2012/en/0bb12dc5-5962-4754-a5ad-ac6374edc7e4/mde150282012en.html

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/palestinian-prisoner-deal-provides-relief-accountability-violations-needed-2012-05-16

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israel-free-palestinian-detainee-prisoners-launch-mass-hunger-strike-2012-04-17

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/palestinian-detainee-gaza-deportation-must-be-released-2012-03-30

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israel-must-release-or-try-palestinian-detainee-hunger-strike-2012-03-23

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israeli-decision-release-palestinian-detainee-april-insufficient-2012-02-21

http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action-Israel-End-use-of-administrative-detention

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israel-must-release-or-charge-palestinian-detainee-prolonged-hunger-strike-2012-02-06

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel-hamas-prisoner-swap-casts-harsh-light-detention-practices-all-sides-2011-10-

Actually the only person I see pushing a view is you my friend, Jethro is trying to use what we call WP:CONSENSUS which is the way we add things here. Sadly you've violated the WP:1RR and have repeatedly put in copyrighted violations. Please take a step back, review WP:AGF or this could be a really short visit here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about views. This is about FACTS. You are deleting facts and returning the article to a previous version which is not even accurate! (e.g. the mass hunger strike of Palestinian prisoners did not start in February but in April). Before disrepecting and deleting the work of another editor, please try to check if his version is more accurate than the previous one or the one you post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish2011 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is about creating an encyclopedia that does not push an agenda or stray from the general format of the article. For example, it's a fact that (just imagine for a moment) my skin color is blue, I have three eyes, and I work on Mars, but that doesn't mean I can bloat Wikipedia with it. --Jethro B 20:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Not push an agenda. E.g. not delegimitizing hungerstrikers by saying that they are "upset they have 3G and not 4G". Is this a comment that indicates that there isn't an agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish2011 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They say that humor can accentuate a situation. --Jethro B 21:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they are hunger striking does not make them notable. The issues are that you are inserting copyrighted info straight copy and pasting, not writing from a nuetral point of view and from the outside it looks like activism. I have absolutely no wish to cover anything up or erase any facts but they way it's being done is the issue not the information. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as it concerns who´s notable and who´s not I would answer that this is not something objective. Of course there can be criteria about that. And I put certain OBJECTIVE criteria such as

• Number of hungerstrikers participationg in a collective hungerstrike
• Length of a hungerstrike
• Achivements of the hungerstrike
• Interest from the most prominent independent human rights NGO in the world

Of course there can be other criteria, such as e.g. if a hungerstriker has died - which is not the case for Palestinian prisoners. But the fact that a hungerstriker didn't die, and instead won his demands or even his freedom, cannot be a reason to underrate the importance of a hungerstrike. As far as it concerns the real reason that my contributions were deleted... If someone is interested in the way the facts are written, he/she can change a part of the article. Not delete the entire part, omiting serious facts. Of course deleting something is easier than change it, because the latter needs more time and references to proove the accuracy of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish2011 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do you understand that you are editing articles that are under editing restrictions? Let's assume you don't, on any of these articles or for any on wikipedia they have to conform to a nuetral point of view. You have to, it is mandatory to work with other editors to get a consensus on what is included. the facts that you consider notable personally may not be acceptable to the site here at wikipedia. Please take time to read WP:NPOV and WP:MOS these will help you work with the community and have less resistance. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very well the editing restrictions. But I would be greateful (dead) if instead of deleting my entire contributions, someone first point out which part is exactly violating the copyright. Then I could agree that it should be deleted or I could try to re-writing in other words. Also before launch accusations of text written not in "a neutral point of view", it would be better if someone would point out which sentence exactly is now written in a neutral point of view. Not to mention that there are no neutral points of view, only FACTS with references from sources. If someone has a reference that contest the accuracy of what was written, why he/she didn't insert it, instead of deleting the reference of someone else. I repeat that it's easier to delete something than to contest it with a reference to some other source. Finally I think it's pure hypocrisy to consistenly delete parts referring to Palestinians with references to palestinian sources in order to respect their ... copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish2011 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish2011, I wonder if you'd be as willing to include say Walid Khaled, whose on a hunger strike in a Palestinian jail, or whether it only applies to militants in charge of organizations that attack Israelis? I notice a section in this article on Irish hunger strikers - it says that 8000 of them went on hunger strikes. Yet the article isn't structured that we list the names of all these hunger strikers, that's simply ridiculous. --Jethro B 22:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro B, I don't have any particular objection to include Walid Khaled - of course in another section about Palestinian prisoners in palestinian jails. But I suppose other people might have objections because Walid Khaled's hungerstrike (which I fully support) are not part of serie of hungerstrikes or a mass hungerstrike, and for the moment it's length is less than the length of dozens of Palestinian hungerstrikers in Israeli jails. As far as it concern the number of hunger strikers, in no way I didn't mention the names of 2000 Palestinian prisoners. I only mentioned the few INDIVIDUAL cases which held a hungerstrike, with a considerable LENGTH. That means if there is an article about Khader Adnan, Hana Shalabi, or Mahmoud Sarsak, it would be unfair not to mention other Palestinian prisoners, participating in the same serie of hungerstrikes, who held longer hungerstrikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish2011 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, most of the INDIVIDUAL cases of Palestinian hungerstrikers in 2012, has to do with ADMINISTRATIVE DETAINEES, which means they are held without charge or trial. And that´s the reason Amnesty International supports them. AI doesnot support any hungerstriker, whatsoever. Therefore allegations by Jethro B, that were militants, are simply not true. If they were militants they would have been accused by Israel and of course there wouldn´t have been released. --Hamish2011 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Adnan only held a rally for Islamic Jihad that one time where he advocated destroying Israel. --Jethro B 22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Apart from the fact that a rally or advocationg for something doesnot necessarily mean that someone is amilitant) Then why he wasn't accused of that? Amnesty International was crystal clear at their message to Israeli authorities: either accuse him with an internationally recognised crime --Hamish2011 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)or release him. Finally he was released...[reply]

Hamish your Samer Al Barq sections were a word for word copy from [[24]] and your other sources was so closely paraphrased it was not acceptable. Remember that you have to write in your own words. The other parts of the issue is how you are actually writing the articles themselves, bolding unnec and drawing a conclusion as to the validity of their detentions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a bucket, I didn´t contest here the Samer Al Barq section. This is not true. I, MYSELF, changed my whole section about Palestinian hungerstrikers in the Hunger Strike article. I put a much smaller part, without of course this section about Samer Al Barq that you mention now. The paragraph about how all began (with Saadat) and the paragraph only mentioning the INDIVIDUAL hungerstrikers and the length of their hungerstrikes, by no means violates any kind of copyright.--Hamish2011 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually let me clarify, I myself am talking about the whole editing pattern. I've actually seen your edits on a few pages when I started researching your edits. Now what I am trying to impress on you and it's worked for a minute the changes for a article like this one start here on a talk page and there is agreement as to why it should be added. Now in this case the consensus, which can change over time is that a list is not nec. Now writing seperate articles with notability if they are notable themselves and they don't fail WP:ONEEVENT. Now I would suggest writing them as a seperate article and doing it in your sandbox. I'm more then happy to come in and look at it when you think it's ready for main space and make suggestions. I've made quite a few article myself and I wouldn't mind lending a hand but the additions here aren't really working. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are kind enough to spend all this time for me, and since you are an experienced editor, would you, please, respond to my question about these concrete paragraphs and if there is a problem with them to be included in a wikipedia article?:Ιn September 2011 Ahmad Sa'adat, Secretary General of PFLP and other members of PFLP, (hundreds according to an Amnesty International report ^[7]) imprisoned in Israeli jails, begun a hungerstrike,to protest against worsening Israeli prison policies and solitary confinement. The hungerstrike was overshadowed by the deal agreed between Hamas and Israel for the release of over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for captured soldier Gilad Shalit. The prisoners' swap deal left out Ahmad Saadat. Saadat and the other PFLP prisoners ended their hungerstrike on 17th of October 2011, the 21st day, after Israeli prison authorities agreed to end the practice of solitary confinement. ^[8] A promise that was not kept. ^[9]The 2012 hunger strikes began with Khader Adnan, who launched his hunger strike on December 18, 2011, in protest against ill-treatment he suffered at the hands of the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) upon his arrest and against being held without charge or trial in administrative detention. He ended his hunger strike on its 66th day on 21 February, when an agreement was made with Israeli authorities that he would be released on 17 April and his administrative detention order would not be renewed. At the time, he was the longest Palestinian hunger striker in history.Many other prisoners followed including Hana Shalabi (43 days of hunger strike), Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh (77 days of hungerstrike), Omar Abu Shalal (70 days of hunger strike), Mohammad Taj (60 days of hunger strike), Mahmoud Sarsak (92 days of hunger strike) , Akram Rikhawi (102 days of hunger strike), Hassan Safadi (71 days of nunger strike and another 93 days of renewed hungerstrike), Samer Al Barq (30 days of hunger strike and another 123 or 125 days of renewed hungerstrike), Ayman Sharawna (ongoing), Samir Issawi (ongoing).--Hamish2011 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem with them? Actually they are more accurate about the facts compared with the current version.

Hamish, you write about the hunger strike "which I fully support." This raises questions whether you have a relation to the subject or are using a personal bias rather than neutrality. --Jethro B 22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that I fully support the hungerstriker YOU mentioned, citing YOUR source, responding at YOUR question about whether I would object him being included. And of course I fully support the release of journalists from any prison in the world (if of course they are arbitrarily detained). Is there something wrong with that? It' rather funny to accuse somebody about bias, when you don't even accept Amnesty International...--Hamish2011 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't recall saying that. Please see WP:AGF. --Jethro B 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you or did you not write "Yeah, very objective. --Jethro B 17:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)" under the coment about Amnesty International? --Hamish2011 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --Jethro B 23:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Amnesty International is biased, right? --Hamish2011 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that there's been a miscommunication there. Amnesty international is a notable organization however they are not always considered notable or reliable sourcing for articles. Try focusing on news papers, thingslike that. I understand they may not be a whole lot out there you can't entirely base their notability off of one organization, it's like using PETA news releases to state animal facts. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why you thing they are not reliable sourcing for articles??? Actually I think AI is much more reliable than any media. They are a very serious organisation. They are very careful of what they wright. As far as it concerns notability, when the most important human rights organization in the world has put such an effort on these people, issuing all those reports and urgent actions in a few months period, I think, that is a rather objective indicator that they are notable cases. --Hamish2011 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They are very careful of what they wright" - I certainly hope they're more careful! --Jethro B 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Hisham... Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel is a good start. --Jethro B 23:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my nickname is Hamish, not Hisham... So I am not the only one making mistakes around here... But since you mention the criticism of AI from the Israeli point of view, which confirms my impression that you do not accept AI as an independent organisation, then, have a look at the criticism of AI from the Palestinian point of view: http://speakingtruthtoamnesty.blogspot.gr/search/label/Palestine No matter if someone agrees with all that, the fact that AI is criticised by both sides, seems to me that is rather independent...--Hamish2011 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I don't accept them, I think they do good work, but we also need to realize there is criticism and we need to use them as references appropriately. Thank you for enlightening me that there is also criticism from the Palestinian side as well. --Jethro B 00:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's at least try and help out since this is a new editor, I'm sure he is trying to learn and when you first start to wiki it's a transition. I'm going to bow out of this paticular talkpage conversation as I have stated the issues I saw. Hamish I'm certainly happy to help you with articles or sources if you need it. Go to my talk page and drop me a line and happy editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[25] I don't see how either of these even begin to meet our inclusion criteria. The apparent extent of the impact that these strikes have made is that they've been reported in the news and created discussion. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a number of changes that highlighted those that died due to their hunger strike (as well as adding new entries that dont appear to meet our inclusion criteria). The editor didn't bother to note all the entries that included deaths, and I'm not sure how we could given some of the entries are about group hunger strikes where some but not all died as a result. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(The top comment from Ronz has been moved from talk page here to better work out the issues involved. Pigman☿/talk 19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

At this point, I don't believe her strike meets the inclusion criteria for the article. She's getting a great deal of attention as recent news, but it's too early to see if it will have any long-term notability. Most importantly, there's been no results from the strike beyond the publicity. This is the key criteria that we've been using at Hunger strike to prevent it from becoming a listing of all hunger strikes, instead of an article about hunger strikes that highlights a few extremely notable ones.

Take a look at the talk page discussions and article history. The criteria is working, but not without occasional confusion. There's support for creating a separate list of notable hunger strikes, but I don't think anyone has tried starting it. It'll likely be a very long list, but it should be manageable if constrained to strikes already mentioned in other articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. I think you are missing the significance of Chief Spence's hunger strike and its impact on the Idle No More movement merely because you are applying relatively strict standards based mostly on WP essays, suggestions or personal preference. If the inclusion criteria is mostly whether PM Harper meets with her (the primary and ostensible reason for the hunger strike), then it is too early to tell. The ancillary effects, though, have already been widespread, worldwide and significant. Support for her and "Idle No More", both verbal/written and by direct action, has galvanized indigenous communities around the world. It is already abundantly clear from reliable sources this is not an event that will just drop off the radar, even if she stops before death or a meeting with Harper.

I'd also like to note that your reference to inclusion criteria basically only includes your personal perspective on inclusion of specific incidents. There is quite a bit of space between WP:COATRACK and arbitrating what are the most "important" incidents of hunger strikes. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Pigman here. I see no consensus on this page for inclusion criteria. Spence is notable, and her hunger strike is currently garnering worldwide media attention and sparking protests. The idea of whether they achieved their goals seems arbitrary and, as many hunger strikes are taken up as a last resort, it is not uncommon for them to not achieve any goal beyond martyrdom for a cause. This article has been flagged for needing updates, so I am opposed to excluding said updates. I am for re-instating the section on Spence and doing a general overhaul of the article. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Ronz. This hunger strike is notable and sourced. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The inclusion criteria is what it is. If someone wants to work to improve it, that's fine. Pretending there is no consensus for it is nonsense. Ignoring the problems that the inclusion criteria addresses is detrimental to this article and this encyclopedia.

So the policies and guidelines relevant to the problems this article has are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT (especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:NOTDIARY).

The relevant essays are WP:COATRACK and WP:RECENTISM.

So, is Spence's strike notable? I don't see an article on it. It's not even highlighted with it's own section in Idle No More. It's generated press and interest, no doubt. If that's all the impact it makes, then I don't believe it should be included. Perhaps if Idle No More's impact grows.

I've pointed out that there is strong consensus for creating a separate article listing notable hunger strikes. I don't see any reason why Spence's would not be included in such an article. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essays of opinion do not supersede policy. The content is written to WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:V standards. Ronz, you are the only one arguing against consensus here. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, throwing a bunch of policy and guideline links out as arguments (some of which are not relevant to the discussion) is more than a little tendentious; it smacks of trying to overwhelm discussion through wikilawyering rather than a civil discussion of issues. I note that this article has been flagged since May, 2012 as "outdated" and requesting editors to "update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information." That is part of what I'm attempting to do. I'm not seeing much evidence of you improving the article. Most of what I see is you owning the article and reverting people on a rote and static basis. I'm sure you understand the difference between vandalism and editing, yes? If you want, I'll detail for you why some of the policy links you cite are not applicable in the instance of inclusion of a list of recent hunger strikes.

That said, I do think it would be a good idea to break out the "recent hunger strikes" section as a separate article since that seemed to be the consensus of the RfC above. I'll try to get around to that soon. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. Thanks!

I've noted the relevant policies/guidelines to start a summary of past discussions as it appeared they were being overlooked. If anyone is interested in discussing why they apply, I'm happy to participate.

Consensus from past discussions on the inclusion criteria resulted in no changes to the criteria, but the recommendation that a separate list be created. I think it's the best next move. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Ronz's post from my talk page and responding here:

Any objections to just following the consensus from the RfC by creating a stand-alone list that includes a link to Theresa Spence? --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to first make improvements here, and get this article in good shape, and then discuss how we want to structure a related page. While I can sympathise with not wanting everyone adding minor figures here, I also think that any article must have the included people meet notability standards, NPOV, and have some content that explains their relevance (as we have here now). I do not support an "article" that is a simple list of names with links. I would instead see a useful split as taking the content in the example hunger strikes and having a paragraph or so on each one. I think simple lists of other articles are often more of a circular file to keep content out of articles. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased. There is no way anyone can honestly say this hunger strike is an "international phenomenon". I won't edit as there are lots of people here working on it who would be better to do that, but really, that's just silly. You WISH it was an international "phenomenon", but come on. It shouldn't even be listed in this article. It's also inaccurate, as bill 45 does not "remove many of the rights of the first nations". That too is the delusion of the protesters, who are no doubt the ones who added her to this page and should thus step away from this article, instead of spreading your own propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.36.223 (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pigman, what kinds of things in this article are outdated? Are there concerns with the content in general, or in the Recent instances section? Zujua (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please remove this section, since someone who subsists on fish broth and tea and is very far indeed from starvation cannot in good faith be compared to Gandhi or the Cuban dissidents. There should certainly be a period of time to assess events before something so politically motivated and biased is added to the list of examples of those who clearly endured great suffering and died or nearly died as a consequence of their hunger strikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.148.125 (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be removed. Chief Spence's hunger strike is not in the same definition of others listed on the website, she is on a diet of tea and fish broth soup. Further, her demands were to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Governor General of Canada. Both of which were agreed to with a meeting of several Aboriginal Chiefs at the same time on Friday January 12th, 2012. Chief Spence as essentially now added conditions and is continuing on a reduced calorie diet of fish broth and tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the past discussions and the history of this article, I think the inclusion criteria should be strikes with their own articles (not many of them) as well as people with their own articles who are notable for participating in a strike.

Since it's come up here before, a note on organization: I think that individuals that participated in a notable or group strike should be listed as sub-bullets:

• 1981 Irish hunger strike
  • Brendan Hughes

Finally, it should be a simple list beyond a lede that introduces the list and includes the inclusion criteria, per MOS:LIST. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the content should be eliminated and replaced with a simple list of articles, whether on this page or another. See comments in Theresa Spence section. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've had lots of discussion on the topic, including an RfC. Before starting another RfC I think it would be best for you to address the policy concerns per WP:CON and maybe bring up some sources demonstrating notability in the context of hunger strikes in general.

So there's no objection to the new list, just concerns on what happens to this article afterwards? --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I think what I had to say about this was clear. The content is sourced and notable. Do not try to re-interpret and misrepresent what I have said. I do not see anyone from those RfCs doing any work on this article, you included. I'm sorry but I do not see how you have improved it. Working on WP is not about keeping people from working on articles, it's about improving them. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. Thanks!

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you please explain? --Ronz (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I'm finding, the list is going to have to be created by finding relevant articles through searches within Wikipedia. This might also be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub, List of hunger strikes. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section. It had no sources, and I couldn't find mention of the topic in other articles. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of hunger strikes has been created and is coming along well. Given the RfC, I think the next step is to remove the "Recent instances..." section and change the inclusion criteria to very notable, historical instances only that can be sourced as such. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed it. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section addresses the early Irish tradition first, but it is pre-dated by the Indian practice. Should probably be reorganized if someone can find some good sources. http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/celtic/Toscad.html might be a start. --Ronz (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a number of articles claiming a man named Samer Issawi is currently engaged in a hunger strike that has lasted over 150 days. Does anyone have any *verified* information about him, and can attest to the allegation that he is still alive, and not eating? It seems rather astounding and doubtful that he has gone without food (eg only water, tea, vitamins) for so long and still be alive. If this case is real then I think he should be added to the list. Here's some sources I've found but I'm not sure how accurate/unbiased they are since they're only coming from the pro-Issawi side of things. Samer speaks from jail International Solidarity Movement Middle East Monitor.Coinmanj (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not much written about him yet. If he's not notable for his own article, he still might be mentioned at Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel#Hunger_strikes. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samer Tariq Issawi exists, and he's listed in List of hunger strikes. He's not mentioned elsewhere. He doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people with a great amount of body fat support a hunger strike much longer than a slim body. In Evolution there is a hypothesis about how humans began storing energy in corporal fat and not die in greater periods of hungering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.85.172 (talk • contribs) 2013-07-16T18:12:49 (UTC)

Not seeing that in this article. Not politically correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.21.36 (talk • contribs) 2014-03-22T14:31:16 (UTC)

Given the large amount of discussion to wade through, most of it before List of hunger strikes was created, I thought it would be useful to repeat the inclusion criteria:

We're only listing historically significant hunger strikes in this article that have created impacts beyond their the expected publicity. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hunger strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222094910/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16397 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16397
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620183051/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20125 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20125
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027130847/http://www.directorio.org/pressreleases/note.php?note_id=2389 to http://www.directorio.org/pressreleases/note.php?note_id=2389
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027130843/http://www.directorio.org/pressreleases/note.php?note_id=2357 to http://www.directorio.org/pressreleases/note.php?note_id=2357
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612141625/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6d4a56492db450206fc427b40751ae2a&rgn=div6&view=text&node=28%3A2.0.3.3.21.5&idno=28 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6d4a56492db450206fc427b40751ae2a&rgn=div6&view=text&node=28%3A2.0.3.3.21.5&idno=28

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hunger strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222202004/http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=53 to http://www.activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=53
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://haifaisr.library.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/csms/2005/00000004/00000003/art00005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it needs to be written in a comprehensive way (42.106.30.58 (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

To this day I still don't understand what the "leverage" or tactical benefit is of a hunger strike. Would be good if article could explain how self-starving is supposed to wield any kind of power over captors. Thank you

I think it's a good idea to emphasize the impacts and outcomes hunger strikes have had, especially in the notable examples listed. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should state whether hunger strikes to the death a type of suicide. A person choosing to starve themselves to death commits suicide. A hunger strike to the death is a person choosing to starve themselves to death whilst making demands. Different people & organisations have different opinions on whether or not they're suicides, but should we say that they are or are not? Jim Michael (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What potential references indicate that this should be considered? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death by hunger strike, which says: The hunger strike is a peculiar kind of suicide. Jim Michael (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable references call Mahatma Gandhi's hunger strikes "suicide attempts"? FDW777 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to use such a reference as that National Review article at all (See WP:RSP#National Review), and am concerned that it's cherry picking information from a reference without regard to the full content of the reference. It would help to find a much better reference, and make some indication of what specific changes to the article we are considering. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael would you please check prior discussions - this one has been done to death -----Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only discussion on this talk page in regard to whether or not hunger strikes to the death are suicides, and there are no archives here. The only discussion on WP in regard to this which I'm aware of is on Talk:1981 Irish hunger strike, but 1981 Irish hunger strike isn't about hunger strikes in general. That discussion only has 2 contributors, with opposing views, so that's nowhere near 'doing it to death'. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read the original post better. Different people & organisations have different opinions on whether or not they're suicides, but should we say that they are or are not? I would think anyone even asking that question should go and read WP:NPOV. FDW777 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would suggest that the viewpoints in regard to whether or not hunger strikes to the death are suicides should be stated in this article, not ignored because they differ. Many WP articles mention opposing views on issues, especially when they relate to politics, which this one does. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

especially when they relate to politics Whose politics? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what the article is about, it's the politics of the participants, political groups, experts on politics, the media, the general public etc. Most hunger strikers have a political goal, so hunger strikes are a political topic. Therefore, this article should state the differing views regarding hunger strikes. There's a section on the medical aspects & another on the legal; there should be one on the political, philosophical, religious & sociological aspects of it. To not have such info in the article is a major omission. Jim Michael (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The debate has taken place in the context of Bobby Sands where you (Jim Michael) are active in parallel so its not unreasonable to expect some reflection but you seem to be on a campaign to use words like 'suicide' and 'criminal' in articles on terrorism/freedom movements etc. etc. Overall Wikipedia has avoided that type of bias. Is it legitimate for this article to reference that some people consider it suicide, if properly references and subject to considerations of weight. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I use criminal to describe convicted criminals such as Sands - that's neutral, factual & reliably sourced - it's far from being biased or a campaign. Even his biggest fans don't claim that he was framed. Are you suggesting that the PIRA were a freedom movement, or that we should regard them as such?!

Why should we not include in this article that many people consider hunger strikes to the death to be suicides? We should also include the fact that many people say that they aren't suicides. Sources represent both those views. Jim Michael (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well it isn't neutral and you need to look at multiple articles where we have the terrorist/freedom fighter issue. You've been editing for over a decade so you should know this by now. As to the second point, third party reliable sources which make that statement would of course allow that view to be presented.-----Snowded ^TALK 13:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have crime, murder, terrorism etc. cats. We don't have freedom fighter cats. No-one has shown a rule or guideline that says not to put terrorists in criminal cats. However, the issue in regard to this article is about views in regard to suicide being or not being suicides. Jim Michael (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see ArbEnf applies.

No new refs have been proposed, and no suggested changes to the article have been made. I don't see the point of continued discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur -----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. This ref, Catholic Church endeavors to put hunger strikers in perspective from the NYT - considered reliable & used in many WP articles - discusses differing viewpoints in relation to suicide & explicitly states 'the suicides of the strikers'. Jim Michael (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent example of cherry-picking. A few more, and we'll have a good case for ArbEnf. Please stop. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Most hunger strikers will take liquids but not solid food." You can live, and not even get hungry, on milk indefinitely I believe. Likewise on soup. Both of these foods are liquids. So this is extremely confusing.Arctic Gazelle (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change something in the article, I suggest finding proper references first. Otherwise, I'm concerned that we'd be violating WP:OR with any edits based upon these comments. --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no section here on Turkey despite Hunger Strikes often being a center point of struggle in Turkish and Kurdish resistance. It seems there was at some point but it was (possibly malicious) deleted as this is a fairly trivial thing to find sources for. If anyone could contribute or recomend more reading that is accessible to me as a non-academic I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you. SP00KYtalk 17:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the recent addition, as it doesn't appear to fit the inclusion criteria with the given references. Please see the previous discussions on the inclusion criteria for this article. --Hipal (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again for the same reasons as before. --Hipal (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this article refers to a number of events involving hunger strikes, it would be beneficial to add a section on the relationship between hunger strikes and sexuality. In other words, someone could examine how (or if) hunger strikes are employed as a means of support for the queer community. Are hunger strikes prevalent in this community? Does this trend differ globally? Pallavi Banerjee, co-author of The Politics and Aesthetics of Global Hunger (2017), might be a valuable source to consider. ~~~~Cb21519 Cb21519 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]