Talk:Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests

Merge to Delaney Hall

Why is this a separate article? Why is this not added to the Delaney Hall article? Djflem (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until this is no longer just a draft page before having this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest merging it to the main article. Djflem (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I respond to this point here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Titles for each date

Djflem hey there, thank you for helping build out the article.

In regard to this edit, I was hoping to have a title for each date section to make the sections easier to navigate. Can we add the May 22 "Day one" title back? Protests started before May 22, so I think it's important to specify the timeline begins at the start of the hunger strikes rather than at the start of other protests at the facility. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Tryptofish for his opinion as well Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to reply in a broader sense in the talk section just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It appears an creator/editor to this draft is closely connected to the subject and appears to adding material that someone who is/at protests and made observation on the ground that are original research when no reliable sources are provided. (adding notes that they are forthcoming should not be included in a draft). Djflem (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you please delete this accusation which needlessly escalates things? The notes I wrote down are based on my memories of video footage I watched of the events at DH throughout the past month to better understand the events (of which there is an abundance, since many independent journalists livestreamed the event and uploaded footage to YouTube and Instagram). Each note may or may not be added depending on whether RS corroborate them and whether they are considered WP:NOTABLE and WP:DUE. Again, this is a draft, and no policy prohibits drafts from having "TODO" notes or temporarily-uncited notes of what to potentially include later down the line that are clearly marked as such using bullet points and {{cn}} tags. If instead you had simply asked me on my talk page where these notes came from so that you could have learned all the facts before making a public accusation without any form of communication beforehand, I would readily have clarified all of this.

In the hundreds of edits I have made to the draft there was one minor neutrality issue you were able to find iirc (saying the DHS "implied" something, which I'm not even sure was an actual neutrality issue per WP:NOTCOM, but there are RS that said DHS made this implication which I was planning on adding later so this was not going to be a neutrality issue by the time the draft was finished regardless). Let's focus on article content. Clearly I am capable of writing articles neutrally, and there is no reason to fight here. Can we please just be civil as we work on this article? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hundreds of edits have been very very very minor and have not added content to the article or have been spent on building an infobox. The article's text really is still just fragments with miscellaneous details that don't hang together. When are you going to WRITE the article?Djflem (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I have been actively writing the article for the past three and a half hours and my recent edits have brought the article from being in a state of nonexistence to where it is right now. I am once again asking you to stop antagonizing me as I work on building out the draft. Please stay away if you have nothing to contribute aside from negativity, accusations, and policing over trivial things such as temporary notes being in the draftspace or the amount of words added per edit. This line of discussion is not helpful, civil, or productive. Just let me do my thing and come back on Sunday when it will be more built-out, like I previously suggested. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989: Can you unequivocally state that you have not participated in, attended, observed, been present at Delaney Hall since began? Djflem (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I have never been to Delaney Hall, and I am not engaging in this line of discussion any further. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. You are interpreting visual information in the form of video clips to write text, is that correct? Djflem (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Djflem: Your attitude here is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I urge you to stop. It's fine to help develop a draft page, and any editor may do so. What is not acceptable is to keep accusing the editor who is working on the draft of acting in bad faith, based on meritless reasons, which I am seeing all over this talk page, or making edits that appear to be making page development more difficult, as described in the talk section directly above this one. If there are problems with how the page has been written, as of the time it gets moved into mainspace, then that's the time to raise those issues. But for now, this is a draft, and WP:There is no deadline. If I see these problems continuing, I am going to have to take you to WP:ANI and seek a page block, so please consider this a final warning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Can you clarify what edits are making the page development more difficult? Can you clarify who says one has to wait for the page to be finished (as of the time it gets moved into mainspace) to raise issues with problems in its development? Can you clarify why you expect other editors to have to sort through the personal notes of other editors which only interfere with the development of the page? Don't think it has has anything to do with bad faith, but everything to do with poor quality of writing, the abundance of unattributed statements and ragged bits of info thrown in here and there, the poor layout, the use of the page as a personal playground. I have been cleaning up the mess. If Alexandraaaacs1989 wanted to quietly develop the paged by themself, they should not added the topnote to the main article page suggesting a split to attract attention to draft article, until this draft warranted/was worth other editors time and effort. So please, spare me your threats.

Highly suggest you and Alexandraaaacs1989 read:

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is not a repository for personal research and it is not a soapbox.
• Wikipedia:Ownership of content, the initiator or major contributor to draft does not own it or have control over it
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which thus far this draft veers away from presenting the material more the protester position

Djflem (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that when Alexandraaaacs drew attention at the parent page to the creation of the draft, that can be considered an invitation to other editors to contribute to the draft. That much is a fair point. You are also entitled to consider the draft, in its present state, to be a "mess". And you may even believe in good faith that you are improving what had been a mess. I will grant you those things. But the tone with which you are conducting yourself here is not conducive to collaborative editing, and the reasonable reaction to coming to a draft page after hearing about it from the post by Alexandraaaacs, and finding it in a very unfinished state should be one of giving the other editor some slack while he continues to work on it, and cooperating with polite requests to hold off when that editor finds that your edits have been making it harder for him to do what he is trying to do. When you ask what edits of yours have been a problem, I find it hard to believe that you haven't understood what Alexandraaaacs has told you are making it difficult for him. And no, I don't make idle threats. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Between when Trypto left the above comment and now:

• You have continued making WP:ASPERSIONS against me like this one in direct violation of WP:AGF.
• You have left uncivil edit notes, even after receiving a warning about civility from Tryptofish above:
  • - United States Department of Homeland Security LINK, the most basic of information that should have been included in the initial publication of draft or early versions of it, but was not and has gone unattended despite claims the article was being worked on
  • - adding United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) link, the MOST basic of information that should have been included in the the first publication of the draft, but has gone unattended for more than a month despite claims the article was being worked on
• You refused to take a step back and return when the article is in a better state, which I repeatedly recommended as a good-faith suggestion intended to curtail conflict.
• You implied material I added veers away from presenting the material more the protester position without giving concrete examples of areas with potential bias, meaning this criticism is neither constructive nor actionable.
• You have ignored repeated explanations that the article is in an incomplete state and have instead made disruptive edits that have made the editing process more difficult, like continuing to remove temporarily-uncited information from the article that is clearly marked with {{cn}} tags:
  • - remove unreferenced statement about ignitor of hunger shtik in contradiction with previous statement
    • Here you make a WP:BATTLEGROUND comment calling the hunger strike a "hunger shtik" (assuming you meant shtick, meaning a usually comic or repetitious performance or routine).

Why are you doing this? We do not need to fight, we do not need to make flippant remarks that delegitimize allegations of abuse against detained people, and we do not need to bring this to an ANI. I am asking you one more time to please try and de-escalate the situation. No one wants to take this to the ANI but I am beginning to see no other recourse. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• The two links are the most basic of information that should have been added long ago. Not uncivil, basic fact.
• I am editing the article and continue making improvements to it. I am not following your suggestion, that is correct.
• I am implying the the article is not NPOV, generally.
• Typo: remove unreferenced statement about initiator of hunger strike in contradiction with previous statement. I had added cn tag and later decided that the unreferenced statement does not belong in the lead.

Djflem (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

For other recourse, see below:Draft talk:Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests#Userfy as an option.Djflem (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions belong on talk page, not the article page

• Guy Christensen was there at some point in June, we should figure out when
• Tom Homan visited the facility at some point in the first week and said conditions were good, we should add this too
• The state of NJ announced intent to sue GEO Group at some time in June
• Add US Press Freedom Tracker data to targeting of press section?
• Add additional details about weapons used by LE each day on protesters (batons, tear gas, etc) and tactics used each day by protesters
• Expand casualties and losses section
• Add additional citations to infobox claims
• Give each day a name `[Month] [Day]: [Name]` format
• Add photos of ICE agents and more photos in general (I'll do this tmrw)

Djflem (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The article needs to bear written more broadly for the public to understand the reasons, the goals, the actions, and outcomes. Every little bit of detail is not important and distracts from the impact.Djflem (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that not every little detail belongs in the article. These suggestions were just ideas of things to look into of things that may or may not make it into the final article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

May 24 note based on video footage: Protesters sat down outside the facility as a group to make it difficult for them to be removed Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

FBI notes based on video footage:

• Attempted to "flip" protesters on each other
• Arrived at homes of protesters seeking information after arrests

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Quote Mikie Sherrill about "out of state" accusations and go more into depth against state (local and federal) accusations against and framing of protests. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The strike was initiated by Martin Soto, a father and the husband of Gabriela Soto who spoke at a press conference outside the facility. Djflem (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Mention how many people died during the hunger strike. With 300 participants and 30 days, there must have been a few deaths or hospitalizations. RastaKins (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of "see also" template

Djflem in this edit you deleted my {{see also}} template from a section it directly relates to since it is already in the See also section. Can we please include this template in a hatnote in this section? Just because we have a "See also" section does not mean we are not allowed to use hatnotes in the article like {{see also}}, {{further}}, or {{for}}. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It adds nothing specific to the subject of the article and is distracting from the subject which is "Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests", and adds specific to it. There are numerous topics that relate to the subject. Choosing one and not others is unbalanced. The see also section includes many topics related to the bigger picture of what is happening around the nation, and that is where is one topic belongs. Djflem (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the user who made the edit has been blocked from editing this article, I am re-implementing the "see also" template unless there are other objections. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you should feel free to revert any of that editor's edits here that you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Userfy as an option

A draft that is in the "Draft" space, for better or worse, is fair game for anyone to edit and work on.

Whatever else is about to happen, an editor is NEVER required to draft a new page under Draft. Ever. The only time you technically HAVE to POSSIBLY use Draft is when you're trying to restore an Article community deleted at Articles for Deletion (then you can go through Draft -or- Deletion Review, different purposes). You can move a Draft to User, or a User draft to Draft. If you're sure your User draft will be AfD-proof, you can move it directly to Article space when ready (how I do it).

Basically, if anyone wants to "solo" build a draft because they enjoy it that way, it must be in your User space. Example of how I organize my own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Very_Polite_Person#My_sub-pages

As long as your User draft doesn't violate any Policies, you can and may revert to your hearts content any perceived interference with your editing there. In Draft, it's still a communal thing. NOTE: No one "owns" their user pages, but if someone doesn't like the direction your User draft is going, you have amazing latitude to revert/ignore to your hearts content as an option.

I'm sharing this to remind y'all there's always an escape hatch to be left alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, I'll keep this in mind for the future ~ Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Name change to Delaney Hall hunger strike

The hunger strike was for a specific period of time - May 22 to June 22, 2026 - while protests have been taking place before and after the event. The "and protests" wording is distracting and unspecific.Delaney Hall hunger strike or 2026 Delaney Hall hunger strike are both more concise. Djflem (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Despite this user having now been page-blocked from here, I think this rename might be a good idea. Certainly worth considering. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll definitely put some more thought into this, but there was an escalation in protests significantly beyond anything that was there previously at DH in response to the hunger strike, and I would like the title to reflect that the scope of the article includes the protests outside during the hunger strike because the protests/law enforcement response outside the facility, like the hunger strike, were very notable and are one of the main subjects of the article.

Not saying no, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts in response to my clarity-of-scope concerns. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We could also call it 2026 Delaney Hall hunger strikes and unrest, and we could rename Newark immigration detention center incident to 2025 Delaney Hall inspection and arrests since the title, now that there's a new page about DH which is also an incident about the same facility, seems unspecific. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you raise valid points, and I now prefer to keep the title as-is. (No need to change to "unrest".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of temporary notes from article

RastaKins, can you please not delete temporary notes like you did in this edit from the draft? The draft is not finished yet and temporary notes help me keep track of what's left to add. Thank you. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I did not not recognize slang words as temporary notes. As @Very Polite Person noted above, draft space invites collaboration, some of which you may not want. After an early bad experience with draft space, I have elected to write new articles or make massive changes to existing articles in my sandbox. (You can also create multiple sandboxes.) Once you have created perfection and posted it, then the critics can pile-on. BTW: I still think the lead is way too long. Should be one or two paragraphs. RastaKins (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :) Anyway the issue with slang by now is resolved, and I'll definitely draft articles in my userspace going forward.

As for the lede being too long, I'm pretty torn here. It's about the same length as World War II. I looked into MOS:LEADLENGTH for guidance, but it was disappointingly vague.

Which parts of the lede would you remove? I tried to include all the most notable aspects of the event, but some of the information is interesting but was not covered by as many outlets, like The federal government has used facial recognition AI to identify protesters, and Newark Police Department (NPD) undercover police were deployed to make targeted arrests in collaboration with ICE. Should this be our delimiter - amount of coverage per claim? But even so, I think these are very important details that deserve mention in the lede.

Honestly, I like the lede as-is. I think it's an appropriate length to summarize all the main events, and also to convey to the reader their severity by including details. I've also been using the lede as a summary in many other articles, e.g., Mikie Sherrill, Ras Baraka, 2026 immigration enforcement protests, etc, and shortening the lede will mean it no longer serves the purpose of giving a relatively in-depth overview of the topic, and a new paragraph may need to be written as a replacement for the currently-cited lede excerpted in these sections, potentially using a template. This sounds like a bit of a headache. Two paragraphs sounds way too short to cover a long, complex, and multifaceted civil conflict with 3 competing sides.

I'll ping Tryptofish to hear his thoughts on the lede. And I'm interested to hear what you think about the points I made. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the weeds, because I have too many other things on my plate, so I'm not in a position to offer anything useful about the specifics of what needs to be kept in the lead and what could be shortened. But my gut reaction on looking at it, is that the lead should be shortened. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I looked through your edits, they look pretty good.

Regarding this one, I honestly agree with it, but the main reason I initially added it was so instead of doing this on the Ras Baraka article:

::=====Additional reactions===== ::{{excerpt|Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests#Additional reactions|only=paragraphs|hat=no|paragraphs=5}} ::

We could do this:

::=====Additional reactions===== ::{{excerpt|Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests#Ras Baraka|only=paragraphs|hat=no}} ::

And doing it the second way would prevent us from having to update the `paragraphs=X` param each time the paragraph order changes in this article, which would be confusing and would probably be broken by accident by editors changing the Reactions section of the article.

But I agree this feels like a bad way of organizing things, so I'm wondering if there's a better alternative of going about this that would allow us to excerpt the Ras Baraka paragraph using <div></div> tags that can be excerpted or something along these lines. Alternatively we could simply copy+paste the text but this creates redundancy and erroneous decentralization I would like to avoid if possible. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

New NPR source

I heard new reporting on this subject on NPR today: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)