Talk:James Heartfield

Deletion of crucial information
On 22 December 2004, the James Heartfield article was vandalised to remove references to:


 * Heartfield's involvement with the Revolutionary Communist Party and co-authorship of its manifesto.
 * His pseudonym James Hughes.
 * His wife Eve Kaye and her work on the anti-environmentalism documentary Against Nature.
 * A link to a GM Watch profile of the LM group.
 * "Heartfield is now a director of LM front group Audacity.org, promoting the network's critique of sustainable development to the construction industry." was changed to "Heartfield is now a director of Audacity.org, campaigning for more house-building".

Various items of personal information and a list of various outlets in which Heartfield has had worked published was substituted in its place. The given summary of this editing was "more information, less pejoratives".

This is certainly the work of someone familiar enough with James Heartfield to know his place and year of birth, names of his daughters, and six different publications he has written for. I am afraid I can't resist the temptation to suggest that this may be Heartfield himself. Members of the LM group are certainly less keen on free speech when they are on the receiving end.

For a comparison of the changes, see this automated comparison.

LD 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)

--- User 82.35** wrote "By this logic LD you'll have noobjections to your email address & mobile no appearing at various websites either." --- I removed LD's cell number being placed here, since I figure that it was placed there by a vandal. User:SiberioS

--- 82.35** I reloacted your comment (minus the cell no and email address) below the original note so that it could be distinguished. (The alternative if comments are most conveniently placed in situ is to indent them by adding :

I deleted the email address too - the essence of your argument remains without the unnecessary feeding of spammers. (Where email addresses are added we try to limit spam by inserting an AT rather than @. However in this context neither the email or cell no's are relevant to the editing changes being discussed.--Bob Burton 17:40, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)

Protected/Locked Article --discussion here.
Hi all. I find the current version, 02:46, 23 Dec 2004 82.35.83.89 to be acceptable and frankly I don't see what SiberioS and LD consider to be missing in the content acceptable to JH. If anyone thinks that important content is missing from the article, please state here, in the talk section, for discussion. Thanks, --Maynard 08:24, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

Several hours later, other than the addition of neocon's undisputed content, the article has been a cycle of reversions going nowhere. To my eye, perhaps too quickly, the two versions hotly defended are of very similar content, not disputing each other, offering only different wording.

Since the article is about a person; and that person his here contributing to the article, let's give that person (JH) the courtesy of expecting that he knows more about his life and his projects than the rest of us do. If you want to add or change anything, suggest it in the context of these talk pages. A sysop will add the content if undisputed, and hopefully all interested parties here (of which I count three) can agree to unlock it soon. --Maynard 18:18, 23 Dec 2004 (EST) ps. Think "Peace on Earth; Goodwill toward men"

book contributions
Hi, I'd like to add the following content to this page. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do it sometime later today.

Heartfield helped read and comment on drafts of Abortion, Motherhood, and Mental Health, by fellow LM group member Ellie Lee. Lee thanks him on the book's acknowledgements page.

--Neoconned 09:35, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

Now transferred. --Neoconned 13:54, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

Mailing List contributions
Here's some more content I'd like to add. Again, if there are no objections, I'll add it later today.

Postings to mailing lists by or about James Heartfield


 * This Google search retrieves postings by or about James Heartfield to mailing lists archived at mail-archive.com: "james heartfield" site:mail-archive.com. Many of these postings are to the Marxism-Thaxis list.
 * This Google search retrieves postings made by James Heartfield using a defunct email address: "Jim@heartfield.demon.co.uk". Some of the postings pertain to the ITN-LM group libel case.

--Neoconned 10:04, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

Now transferred. --Neoconned 13:52, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

But who are you, neo-conned?
It seems a bit arcane to me, though if you are interested you can find most references to me in print at http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/refs.htm

But, who are you, neo-conned, that you should be so interested?

James Heartfield

sorry, forgot to log-in
that last addition of quote was mine. JH

JH, the simple fact is that nothing you have deleted is either controversial, or in fact, un-true. In fact most of it isn't particuarly damning per se, unless you disagree with the politics (which people may or may not). And as for your insistence on revealing the personal names, emails, and cell phone numbers of SourceWatch contributors, thats ridiculous. Unlike yourself we are not public figures, nor have we done anything to be, outside the handful of people who have revealed their names and the various journalists who also contribute. User:SiberioS

There are a couple of things I'm still not happy with...

The organisation of which Heartfield is a director does significantly more than "campaigning for the building of new homes". Audacity.org advances an agenda which is nakedly against environmnatalism and sustainable development: "audacity challenges advocates of sustainability to justify their pessimistic views...audacity challenges advocates of community to drop their elitist schemes for social engineering, and instead learn a little about real engineering". It's website lists areas in which it is active under titles such as "Climate Change - No Problem" and links to writing by Bjorn Lomborg. I suggest returning Audacity's descriptor back to the previous one of promoting a "critique of sustainable development".

The second ommission is Heartfield and Audacity's links with the LM group. The RCP may now be defunct, but the same people are around expounding the same ideas. The only difference being that front groups are the vehicle for this rather than a political party or a magazine (Living Marxism). Heartfield denies the existence of such a political network, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

Precisely the same line on the precautionary principle, sustainable development, climate change and the environment is being disseminated by a small set of organisations populated by members of an ideological clique of former RCP members and people involved with LM Magazine. Somehow Heartfield expects everyone to accept his explanation that this is all some magical coincidence and that there is no such political network, however loosely defined.

Does anyone object to the alteration of Audacity's description and the reinclusion of the LM group links? LD 13:01, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

Why not go public?
Sean Siberio objects to the question, 'who are you?' on the grounds that contributors to SourceWatch are not public figures, but that seems to me like having your cake and eating it. SourceWatch is in the public domain. Contributing to it is public comment. Why not put your hand up? So come on, 'neo-conned', who are you?

LD wants to add the audacity blurb, fine. But why not include both descriptions?

PS, Sean is mistaken in thinking that I posted anyone's e-mail or cell-phone.

James Heartfield

JH, suggesting that SourceWatch, and its contributors, are public figures, is like arguing any message board member of a public message board deserves to have his email/phone number/etc exposed. In fact, most message boards have features so you can keep those things secret, because they don't want their privacy invaded. And yes, you did post up people's cell phone and email address. If you continue to vandalize posts, divulge private details of contributors, I can gurantee you one of the sysop's will be ban you, the IP you use, or otherwise lockdown the articles you insist on changing, despite the fact that there is nothing particuarly false or untrue about any of them.

User:SiberioS


 * >> But, who are you, neo-conned, that you should be so interested?
 * Oh dear, James. I'm not particularly interested. I'm just a SourceWatch user who saw the activity surrounding your article, and wanted to expand it to make it more informative and useful. Simple as that. I'm at a loss to see how posting some links to your own comments can be construed as 'public comment', or should elicit such an overtly hostile response.
 * Given that you initially tried to anonymously vandalize your own article, and only identified yourself after LD suggested that 82.35.83.89 might be you, i would suggest you're on somewhat shaky ground with this argument.
 * Anyway, glad to hear you're ok with the additions. I'll move them across to the main article. --Neoconned 13:48, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

Request to bar user 82.35.83.89
Can a sysop please bar User:82.35.83.89? This IP's contributions are basically a list of vandalisations of various articles, the latest being a reversion of the James Heartfield article, erasing changes agreed by consensus on this talk page. LD 14:10, 23 Dec 2004 (EST) ---

User 82.35.83.89 posted this comment to the article page and he/she insisted be retained despite other D users editing it out and reverting other changes. So I have relocated it here.

On discovering that he was the subject of an entry in SourceWatch, Heartfield said: "Thrilled as I am, I cannot help but feel that there is something anorak-ish about it."

While wary of banning a contributor during edit exchanges the insistence of 82.35.83.89 in deleting other users fair and accurate contributions to the Heartfield page is unwarranted. In recent changes rather than addressing the specific objections of what is on the page 82.35** has insisted on his/her version of the page. I'm blocking the user to ensure other contributors time is not wasted. --Bob Burton 14:32, 23 Dec 2004 (EST)

SourceWatch, or misinfopedia?
Strangely intolerant reaction to a new user from neoconned, LD and Sean Siberio. Neoconned prefers to hide his identity. LD wants me banned, and Sean edits out anything I add.