# Talk:Going Clear (film)

In the section Scientology Response to the documentary, does any editor wish to incorporate some of the following reasponses Scientology has issued in an effort to fair game the witnesses et al in the documentary? Presumably we can expect a great deal more of this as the March 16th airing approaches, so perhaps it's not such a good idea to enumerate such responses, otherwise editors would be kept busy pretty much constantly and merely be underscoring the phenomena.
Source: http://www.mikerindersblog.org/dont-freak-out/
From: Paul Clark --removed--

Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 6:58 AM
To: TheRazzLine Email Service
Subject: Opinion. Re “Hatchet Jobs” on the church and the most recent movie.
Don’t freak out and don’t be effect every time some self-important jerk does a ‘hatchet job’ on Scientology. I’ve been on lines for nearly 40 years, watching ‘them’ re-cycle the same crap over and over. Some witch hunter gets the villagers all stirred up and they light their torches and march up the mountain. Except instead of finding monsters, they find us; people who are actually interested in them, who grant them beingness, who see their rightness and point it out. Who go about our lives working on bettering things and people. When the villagers can’t resolve what they’ve heard with what they actually find, they put out their torches and go find something else to do. 
I have quite a few friends, acquaintances and in-laws who are non-Scientologists. They’ve heard all the same media crap, but since they like me, they don’t bother trying to figure it all out. The ones above 2.0 stick. The ones below 2.0 leave (for some reason, I don’t miss them). I have one good friend who has gone from absolute white-faced shock at finding out I was a Scientologist, to describing me to others as “highly intellectual” (which I find amusing as hell). I have another friend who is working on his second PhD dissertation, who told me I’m the only one he can discuss any topic with. It’s all because of what I’ve learned from LRH. 
The point is, Don’t sweat it when these media attacks happen. When a bully can’t make you run, he finds someone else that will. 
End of Opinion.
Source: http://www.mikerindersblog.org/panic-in-the-bubble/
From: Janna Trevisanut --removed--

Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 9:19 AM
To: The Razzline Email Service
Subject: Freedom Mag Special Report
Hello Razzerinos,I don’t know how you deal with the tabloid-like “news” headlines that are sometimes hung out on the ‘net proclaiming this or that “revelation” about our church. I make it a point to never click through to read such an article, on that basis that an entheta line requires theta for its existence (I do not contribute my theta to it). Further, I choose not to support a media organization’s lack of integrity by reading its hallucinatory story.
So I see some weird headline and think, “What the what??” (I actually use a different word for the second “what”). I know it’s false or spun, ignore it and go on. But from time to time I do wonder, “How in the world did someone ever even come up with that, and who exactly was it?” It doesn’t hang me up, but some of them do get filed in the bullpen corner of my universe as a slight, dim, unimportant, almost-but-not-really mystery. :)
Well, my friends, Freedom Magazine has done a fabulous exposé on the history and sources behind a current
“What the what??” that also explains the true source of some of the other weird items that I know I have seen in the past. In its pages are fascinating histories of some of the “fallen,” write-ups some of them, in brief moments of clarity, have done, as well as affidavits, court record excerpts and other documentation that explain A LOT. Oh my gosh – A LOT!I spent the entire last evening reading this material (not finished yet) and cannot recommend it highly enough. It is here: --Scientology web site blacklisted by Wikipedia--
Thank you to Freedom Magazine, and I hope you enjoy this as I have.
Best,
Janna Trevisanut 
From: Jo Ganz --removed--

Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:51 PM
To: Ray McKay
Subject: Some “ammo” for FSM’s
Dear Razzies,The purpose of this post is to tell you that if you are asked by selectees or non-Scientology associates about a film called “Going Clear” which was presented at the Sundance Film Festival, Freedom Mag has done a magnificent job of exposing the crimes of the writer and producer and the crims who appear in the film. One look at this vid on Freedom’s website will handle any questions or doubts you may be presented with about the validity of this film. I looked at the 9 minute vid and all I can say is WHOA! Freedom knocked it out of the ball park!
Here’s the link: --Scientology web site black listed by Wikipedia --
...end of quoted text...
One of the more relevant aspects of the letters that Scientology is asking its customers to send around is the inclusion of their "rebuttle" in their "Freedom Magazine" web site which is motivating a lot of people to see the documentary when it airs on HBO. I'm curious whether any editors fell such materials is suitable for inclusion. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume the reference to "above 2.0" is about the tone scale? Regardless, while this is very interesting, I don't think  Rinder's blog posts quoting emails are usable as sources. Using blogs is sometimes okay, but never for BLP content (WP:BLPSPS). That's probably a dealbreaker, but it's made more complicated by the fact that Paul Clark (Paul R. Clark?), Janna Trevisanut, and Jo Ganz are not specifically mentioned in the article and would need sourced context and explanations in order to incorporate their opinions (likewise with RazzLine). Although it's fascinating, this is a WP:BLP minefield. Maybe this can be revisited when it's mentioned again by more solid sources, which, as you say, is a pretty safe bet.
And if Freedom Magazine's actions create more curiosity about the movie... Good point, but only time will tell. (Ping @Damotclese: in case you didn't know this comment was moved.) Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are correct, 2.0 is "Antagonism" which, one assumes, in the real word means "truthful." The original emails were sent to film critics so if they were used as references as you suggest, the blog would not by good enough, one would need to find a web page or news report where the source is one of the film critics that received the emails.
You're also right, March 16th quickly approaches and we can expect further and more astonishing responses which might be suuitable for the article. I was also interested in the fact that "Freedom Magazine" links are banned by Wikipedia. Fascinating. Damotclese (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, @Grayfell: one thing that these emails also shows is that the controllers / operators of this business do not want any of their customers to not only refrain from seeing the documentary, but they also don't want any of their remaining customers to think about the documentary. The emails say "I turn off my brain when confronted by something truthful about the criminal enterprise I work for and hand my money to, so you should do what I do."
As a response by Scientology's operators to their customers, that behavior I think is significant and informative enough for includion in the article, but the emails would need better sources. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The Freedom Magazine site is probably blacklisted because of shenanigans around Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Incidentally, it's also blacklisted at Freedom (magazine), but I just proposed whitelisting the index, since that's the one place it that would legitimately warrant a link.
CoS's response to this movie is absolutely worth covering and expanding, but the fact that they want to downplay it and suggest that people ignore it is not really all that surprising to me. It does demonstrate that they consider it a real concern and a significant event, but saying that in the article would need a source specifically making that conclusion. There is a lot more to it, clearly, but this is why we need very solid, reliable sources before we could include something like that, and if we did, we would need to unambiguously attribute that point of view to a source rather than presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. I'm sure we'll have plenty of reviews to work with very soon. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well done, Messrs Alex Gibney and  Lawrence Wright! 
I "escaped" scientologist stupidity in the late '60's when their minions tried to con-vince (sic) me that holding used cocoa-powder tins unattached to a vintage amp-meter would "reveal" my personality defects. LOL. All persons under the sway of scientology require professional help for their low self-esteem issues. 
And Larry Niven once pointed out elsewhere that scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, advocated, during a writers workshop in the '40's when said writers where complaining 'bout their low rate of pay - 2 cents per word - starting a church "...if y'all want to make real money..." 41.13.84.171 (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/03/its-not-easy-being-scientology/388634/
Someone might work it into the end of the article.Keith Henson (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if all of the consequences of the Going Clear documentary exposing Scientology's human rights crimes and financial frauds could make it in to a definitive Wikipedia article, but eventually the extant article would be very large since the documentary's results are widespread and vastly numerous. So folding in one review of the documentary's consequences seems kind of pointless. :) Damotclese (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the sentence has ended with a period, the proposed added word "it" would have been appropriate for English grammar, if capitalized. Damotclese (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

this guardian paper should be interesting [1] RigOLuche (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that report. I've updated this article with info from the source article for the report above, namely [2]. Prioryman (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Going Clear (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. -- Matthew RD 18:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written? No issues that are apparent to me here. It does seem well written. Well done. Y
2. Verifiable? Y
3. Broad in coverage? Y
4. Neutral? Got all sides of the issues, including positive reviews with some negative critiques in it, and responses from the church, no matter how bonkers it might be. Y
5. Stable? No recent edit conflicts, or at all. Y
6. Images? Y


### Notes
I hear the doc is getting seven Emmy nominations. Perhaps there should be a mention of this.
Thanks, I've added a section on this. Will await the rest of your review with interest - thanks for taking this on! Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a pleasure. I'll probably never think of Tom Cruise the same way again, though. Anyway, I've finished reviewing the article, there's just a couple of things needed to be taken care of. -- Matthew RD 21:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Cites #23 and #42 don't have a publisher on the templates.
Fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
"The church complained that Gibney had declined to interview 25 of its members whom it had put forward to him.[7] According to Gibney, Miscavige, Travolta, and Cruise all declined interviews and the church instead offered "a delegation of 25 unidentified individuals, presumably to smear the people in our film", which did not interest him.[37]" The Miscavige, Travolta and Cruise declining interviews bit is not supported by cite #37, but it is supported by cite #7.
I think I must have mixed up the order of the citations there - thanks for spotting it. Fixed now. Prioryman (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Overall just some nit picky things, but impressive article overall. I will give you seven days, but I doubt it would even take one, after which I will pass this. -- Matthew RD 21:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Matthew R Dunn: Sorry about the slight delay in completing this, but it should all be done now. Prioryman (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That's alright. Everything's sorted now so I can gladly say I'll pass this article. Good job. -- Matthew RD 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.avclub.com/article/scientology-still-trying-stop-people-seeing-going--225654 --Mika1h (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This would be a good link for the section covering the Scientology corporation's response to the documentary. Damotclese (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The extant article would probably benefit from the addition of a see also section which includes links to a number of Wikipedia articles which discuss things that the Going Clear documentary covers, such as links to Scientology's fake "drug treatment" fraud they call Narconon and anything else which the documentary touched upon.
Often when someone watches a documentary they may hear about something and then forget the exact name or wording of what they wanted to look up later. A see also section listing some of the more notorious crimes and abuses, fake fronts and other significant things mentioned briefly in the documentary may be a good thing to have. Damotclese (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the opening paragraph ends with "It was subsequently shortlisted as a candidate for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.". Since it was actually not nominated, it seems a little odd to put this in the lead. Factually, it was considered, not nominated. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)