Talk:Jihad Rehab
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jihad Rehab article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | A fact from Jihad Rehab appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 October 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- ... that the documentary film Jihad Rehab features interviews with former inmates from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp who are now in the Care Rehabilitation Center, a “jihad rehab” in Saudi Arabia? Source: "Meg Smaker felt exhilarated last November. After 16 months filming inside a Saudi rehabilitation center for accused terrorists, she learned that her documentary “Jihad Rehab” was invited to the 2022 Sundance Festival, one of the most prestigious showcases in the world.
Her documentary centered on four former Guantánamo detainees sent to a rehab center in Saudi Arabia who had opened their lives to her, speaking of youthful attraction to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, of torture endured, and of regrets." The New York Times
Created by Thriley (talk) and Mooonswimmer (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 00:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
Article new enough, sourced properly, long enough, no obvious copyright issues. QPQ done and hook sourced with right length. Article is good, sorta surprised that this is the DYK instead of the controversy but I suppose that's too sticky a subject. Good job, ready for DYK! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Can this be rolled back, please? edit
I looked at this page, and Youtube commentators and the film's director were cited for the "cancellation" of the film. At the page history, surprise, I found that the article as you see it today was basically written by an IP, including the parts about "cancellation", which were rewritten with said sources to be quite POV. The DYK nom was of an NPOV version of this article, accepted, as you can see above, on October 5. Beginning about October 14, and through today, however, the article was completely reworked by that IP. This somehow slipped the attention of recent changes patrollers.
I ask that a user with rollback privileges restore this diff by Schwede66. Thank you, Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)