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.

Laurence Durnan 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)

--- User 82.35** wrote "By this logic Durnan you'll have noobjections to your email address & mobile no appearing at various websites either." --- I removed Durnan'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)

---

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 L.Durnan 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)

---

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 [1].

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

---

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)

---

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" [2]. It's website lists areas in which it is active under titles such as "Climate Change - No Problem" [3] and links to writing by Bjorn Lomborg [4]. 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? Laurence Durnan 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?

Laurence Durnan 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