Talk:Patricia Cornwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Archives

See Talk:Patricia Cornwell/archive for long sections of discussion removed from here. The discussion is still going on. Ortolan88 00:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retained from previous discussion because not yet answered:

[edit] Did the move

Since consensus was reached a while ago, I went ahead and moved bulk of info from here to new page Portrait of a Killer. Some of the information from Walter Sickert can be moved there as well, some others to Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories, with summary info and links to those two articles. I am ignoring those who only want to prolong pointless arguments (see bottom of page) and am moving on to doing what was agreed upon by the majority of editors. The bulk of personal accusations below should probably be archived away after a while so the page can move on and not be cluttered by complaints that have nothing to do with the article in question. DreamGuy 19:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requests

This article needs to include:

  • The article says Cornwell was born in 1956, but that her dad left the family in 1952....?
  • Cornwell's other publications
  • Her notorious "affair" with the wife of an FBI agent, and other publicity coups

Jumbo 16:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • Have completely reworked the bibliography and I think it is now complete. Barnabypage 14:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Also should have controversy over her investigation into the death of Princess Diana. I think we have other publications all listed now, but it's be nice to have release dates of each next to their mention on the list. DreamGuy 19:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

<long discussion moved from here to archive>

Yes, what is up with her dad leaving her family 4 years before she was born? Clearly she was not born in 1956 but earlier. Lisapollison 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brief notes on all this

My own reaction when I find myself getting angry about an article I'm involved in on Wikipedia is to ignore the article from anywhere from 48 hours to the rest of my life. There are thousands of other articles I could be working on. I find it relaxing to go work on some other article, something I've worked on before, or something I see in Recent changs or New pages. Random page is guaranteed to turn up an article that needs some kind of work within three or four clicks. Some articles need expanding, others need their markup fixed, etc. The odds are that whoever I am getting hot about will not be interested in working on any of those articles. If all else fails, I do something else, not in the Wikipedia.

Now, to the topic at hand. I have not read everything on this and all the other talk pages about this controversy because the ratio of heat to light strongly favors the heat. In particular, I have not worked hard to sort out who is on what "side". I've just skimmed and skipped through it. I will nonetheless plunge in with some observations about what an encyclopedia might need on this topic and how to present it.

The main issue is, where is the best place to discuss Patricia Cornwall's theories regarding Walter Sickert and Jack the Ripper?

  1. I am personally not impressed with Patricia Cornwall's theory on Sickert and the Ripper, but it is certainly something people will want to read about in the Wikipedia.
  2. The actual article on Patricia Cornwall has not been improved by any of this discussion. It is weak, and overwhelmed by the Ripper material.
  3. Cornwall is a very successful mystery novelist and that aspect is pretty much lost in the sniping at her (however much it might be deserved). In particular, she paved the way for all the "crime scene" stuff that is a dominant form of police fiction on TV today, as well as a popular form of TV documentary.
  4. A while back, the material on Cornwall's Sickert theory was swamping the Jack the Ripper article. I pulled it all out, looked up Sickert in several art sources (not all of them on-line), in which he is prominently mentioned as a student of Whistler and successful artist himself, and influential to this day through his involvement in photography and graphic arts. I wrote an article, which is still pretty much as I wrote it, and then added a "Ripper theory" summary to the Sickert article, also still pretty much there, which discusses not only Cornwall's book, but the people who preceded her on this theory.
  5. Nonetheless, as of today, and for the next few years, more people will look up Walter Sickert for the Ripper theory than for his artistic achievements. That's just the way it is. Readers should be able to find this information. It is better to have all material on the Sickert Ripper theory in one place, where it can be most easily maintained, and kept in context.
  6. My own belief is that the Sickert article is the best "one place" for that, with a cross reference to this article included, which is what I did, back then.
  7. However, this toxic theory of Cornwall's seems to poison everything it touches, so I believe that the very best solution is a separate article on the Sickert Ripper theory, linked to from the Cornwall article, the Sickert article, the Ripper article, the article listing all the proposed Ripper suspects, and anywhere else it comes up.
  8. That way, the discussions could center on the theory, and not on which article it ruins by its presence. As it is, both the Sickert article and the Cornwall article are less useful than they could be because of the distortion induced by the discussion of this Ripper business.
  9. Maybe Cornwall could look into who "really" wrote Shakespeare.

I hope these observations are helpful. Ortolan88 05:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I fully agree - a separate article on all Sickert-Ripper theories would be ideal. john k 08:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would not object to this suggestion, however - do you not think that simply putting this information in the List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects and perhaps retitling the page theories concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper would suffice? The possibility of Sickert as an accomplice rather than a suspect could then be discussed in context. IVoteTurkey 10:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That article only contains paragraph summaries, not the kind of in depth information already on this page, let alone additional information found on the Sickert page. You keep trying to take from all the other articles and stuff everything onto one page. What you're proposing is the exact opposite of what everyone working on these pages has been doing and simply won't work. The Jack the Ripper content is rapidly expanding, with the main article spawning nine new related articles recently and the suspect list having in depth information on its suspects split off as a matter of standing policy. Considering the vast number of books devoted to Ripper suspects, the idea that information on suspects should be limited to one article is patently absurd and unworkable, which you would know if you actually were involved with maintaining the page, read the comments on the page, or listened to what anyone here was saying. DreamGuy 12:30, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
"That article only contains paragraph summaries" - exactly - plenty of room for expansion - what is the point in duplicating this information? Why not put everything here where each theory it can be discussed in context with the others? - it seems perfectly sensible to me. IVoteTurkey
".. suspect list having in depth information on its suspects split off as a matter of standing policy" -policy? Where is this policy elaborated? IVoteTurkey
"the idea that information on suspects should be limited to one article is patently absurd and unworkable" - not at all - Encyclopaedia articles limited to 32k of text are never going to cover subjects with the same depth as conventional books. I see no reason why this related information should be spread all over the place like jam. It seems entirely sensisble - and far from "patently absurd" to keep it all in one place. You have to agree surely that these theories are best described in the context of one to another rather than isolating them and duplicating information across several articles? IVoteTurkey 13:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have said that I have no objection to the idea of a separate article on Sickert/Ripper theories - but I am merely enquiring about what objections people have to my suggestion. - You had you say on that matter- thank you. IVoteTurkey 13:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dreamguy - I am still waiting for you to give me an apology for threatening to ban me and accusing me doing all sorts of things that I haven't done. At the moment people are getting a biased view of my intentions regarding this subject because of the vitriol you have poured upon me. I would appreciate it if you could point out your error of judgement regarding your view of my actions and intentions so that readers who are coming to this page and have not read the in depth discussions can get a true impression. IVoteTurkey 13:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Just to re-state my position - I've just re-read Ortolan88's comments - he says "this toxic theory of Cornwall's <sic> seems to poison everything it touches" - that's something I concur with entirely - my original view was that this theory should therefore be flung back in the face of Cornwell and should be placed on her article rather than Sickert's. I have come round to the view that perhaps her theories should be placed with others about Sickert -but I still believe that it shouldn't poison Sickert's article. IVoteTurkey 13:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed hierarchy:

  • Jack the Ripper – article primarily about the murders and the mystery surrounding the deaths, set the general context and point to:
  • List_of_proposed_Jack_the_Ripper_suspects – general article on the "Ripper-suspect industry", naming as many names as possible, with summaries of the "evidence". Some "suspects" won't be named anywhere else. In a few cases, where the "evidence" takes up more space, and would overwhelm the "suspects" article, point to:

To summarize, one article on Jack, one article on all suspects, individual articles on prominent suspects as suspects, separate articles on prominent suspects as themselves, few more articles on less prominent but notable suspects, and so forth.

I should add, despite all the rancor expressed here, it doesn't seem to me that anyone has acted in bad faith, everyone trying to make the articles better, but running up against that old problem of coming across the way you want to when people are typing at each other, so how about a round of electronic handshakes and then we refactor? Ortolan88 17:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ortolan - you have the wisdom of Solomon. A perfectly sensisble proposal. While I'm happy to go along with the idea - I still personally question the necessity of having these separate (and difficultly titled) articles, when all that information could be adequately be included in an article titled theories concerning the identity of Jack the Ripper i.e. an expanded List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, I've yet to hear any decent response as to why this would not suffice.

There should be separate articles for a few because there's more to explain. One is the recent subject of a book by the most popular mystery writer, so there's a lot of interest there, to say the least, as amply demonstrated in the past few days, I think. The other was "almost" King of England and has been a "Ripper favorite" for 75 years or more. Those two alone would gradually take over the whole "all suspects" article. Some of the other "favorites", oh, say, Lewis Carroll, not to mention Dr. Tumblety or Michael Ostrog, have hardly made any impact at all. I believe we offer a clearer picture if we show Sickert and Clarence both separately and as part of a long long line of many other "Ripper favorites" over the years.

"..because there's more to explain" - yes - and there's plenty of room for that explanation on the current suspects page. It's only 17.5k at the moment. "... Those two alone would gradually take over the whole " - well they would certainly take up a aubstantial part of the article I proposed - but if they are the most discussed theories - then that seems highly appropriate for such a page, does it not?

No, because the other items on the "all suspects" pages are bullet entries of just a few lines each. It just doesn't work to mix long expository pieces of multiple-paragraph length about the royal line or the way women are posed in Sickert's picture with short takes on Ripper candidates. Better to include a few lines on that page about Sickert and Clarnece, then link to the real article. "For more detail see, ... ".

This isn't a matter of giving more validity to these two theories, its just the way people read, they don't like being asked to shift gears like that.

Well I simply don't buy that argument, I think you are coming up with and excuse to defend the position you have established rather than giving a genuine and valid reason why this state of affairs is in anyway better than the one I propose. But on this we will just have to agree to disagree. IVoteTurkey 08:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not coming up with excuses. In writing for the public, which I have been doing more than 40 years, when one part begins to overload the whole, you break it out. This is how you decide to start a new sentence, a new paragraph, a new section, a new chapter, or, in the case of Wikipedia, a new article. When the current sentence starts getting long – and some of mine are whoppers – you have to put a (full) stop to it. Same goes for a paragraph that's too long. There's almost always another topic sentence buried away in a long paragraph, two carriage returns and it's suddently easier to read. Et cetera. I just started an article on dog training. If I had put it in the dog article, it would have distorted it unduly, so I put it in its own place.

And yes, let's do come up with better titles than The Duke of Clarence proposed as Jack the Ripper suspect. PS - Such as The Duke of Clarence and Jack the Ripper and Walter Sickert and Jack the Ripper. PPS – I think something like this, for example, in the Sicekrt article:

Sickert's name is one of many on a list_of_proposed_Jack_the_Ripper_suspects. See Walter Sickert and Jack the Ripper for more information.

Ortolan88

Regarding "burying the hatchet" - it seems that DreamGuy lacks the will or humility to apologise first, so it falls upon me to do so in the hope of suitable reciprocation. DreamGuy - I apologise for antagonising you and I'm sorry that you found my interest in this subject to be "harrassment" - as Ortolan suggests there was certainly no bad feeling intended. IVoteTurkey 18:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe he's out raking the leaves. That's where I've been. You got here first. Why not just apologize? Ortolan88 21:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have already ^^^^ - I was referring to the lack of response over my request for an apology, that I first made several days ago, and which suggested to me that I should probably make the first move. IVoteTurkey 23:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are sincerely sorry you had the uproar with the other guy, but you can just apologize for yourself and let the other guy take whatever action he wants for himself. Ortolan88 05:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) Later PS - I meant that you can apologize without attributing motives for not doing so to the other guy. There may be many reasons, creditable, not creditable, neutral, exculpatory, for not replying. I'm suggesting you just let the lack of a reply speak for itself. Ortolan88

That's what I've done ^^^^. IVoteTurkey 08:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've come to this rather late, having just had a little fence with Turkey on an entirely unrelated matter in which he/she conceded with good grace and no rancour. DreamGuy on the other hand used the expression "some newbie with no history". I draw no particular conclusion from this other than that I judge people by there words and deeds. Having said that, I can see no justification for the criminally unbalancing effect the Ripper stuff has on the Sickert page. He was one of the great artists of his generation and described in the Guardian article linked above thus: regarded by some as the greatest British painter between Turner and Bacon. That is pretty damned illustrious company and the only place for scurrilous nonsense with no credible evidence to back it is 'elsewhere'. So whatever you do, do it pronto, please. My shiny Two New Pence worth. Icundell 20:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hearing no objections

I'm thinking of going ahead and refactoring as I suggested above. Tomorrow. Ortolan88 00:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re your request for more elegant titles, may I suggest something simple like Ripper suspects - Walter Sickert, Ripper suspects - Duke of Clarence, etc? Economical, free of tortured syntax, and has the avantage that they should get the same ranking on search engines (the victim pages, if there are any could be renamed in similar style). Icundell 12:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, well, unless Wikipedia starts paying me to be an editor it may not always be possible to hop in with objections with a day's notice. Regarding the plan, what I recommend is what we've already done elsewhere here... If we are talking about what only one major book says, break it out for an article about that book, like Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend. As proposed on the Duke of Clarence page, I think that article should be called something like Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories, as it covers more ground. After having thought this through, if we are going to break Walter Sickert as JtR discussion out, I think we can do this to avoid duplication and spreading things out too far by putting a short summary in his article like we did in Lewis Carroll's article (yanking any mention at all is completely wrong, for anyone still trying to suggest that) and then summarizing by somthing along the lines of "Walter Sickert features in some Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories and is also named as Jack the Ripper by Patricia Cornwell in Portrait of a Killer." As far as I know, all of the published Sickert theories fall into one camp or the other... either a Royal Conspiracy or Cornwell's crazed artist theory. (I *think* Overton-Fuller's book involves a royal conspiracy, haven;t bothered to read that one.) Since we already have text discussing the Royal Theory and one for the Cornwell theory, splitting it out would be pretty easy that way. DreamGuy 13:24, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Hey that's a good idea - Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories (your words) - well let's see... we already have an article which lists the suspects at list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects so we can pretty much use this (and the Prince Eddy and Sickert stuff) as the basis for this article. No wait -- we can't can we. Ohh well. IVoteTurkey
Are you even trying to make sense or are you just trying to be rude again? I said Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories, not what you just claimed I said, and those are a distinct minority subset of the list of all proposed suspects. And even if I had left off the word "royal" (which I didn't), most of the proposed Ripper suspects can't be construed as conspiracy theories by any stretch of the imagination. Please pay attention to what I say and the content of the articles in question before making snide statements which serve no useful purpose. DreamGuy 13:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
And, looks like I accidentally dropped "royal" on the second time I used the phrase, but it is clear from the first phrase (and the discussion of this issue on the Duke of Clarence page) what I was talking about... Not to mention that, as I said, most of the suspects on the list of proposed suspects have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. If IVoteTurkey actually took the time to read these things instead of jumping in with kneejerk snippy remarks we'd be a lot better off at this point. DreamGuy 14:05, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
DreamGuy I have had the good grace to make an apology in the hope that we can discuss things cordially - but as yet no reciprocal action has taken place on your part. Instead you continue to make personal remarks against me, which you have been doing from our very first interaction on this issue. So I have to add yet another item to littany of abuse I have taken from you. The paragraph above was very intended as a light-hearted joke based upon the slip-up you made. IVoteTurkey 14:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dear lord, after all the harassment and snide remarks you aimed my way, including this "light-hearted joke", you pretend to have suffered a 'litany of abuse"? If you expect to be taken seriously with your apology you need to act like you mean it instead of attacking me some more and then pointing the finger my way. Move on already. DreamGuy 18:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
I have made no such "snide remarks" as you put it - I challenge you to point out these so-called snide remarks. All I have done is attempt to debate this subject sensibly, without recourse to insults. On the other hand you have continually - and from my very first edit - aimed vitriol in my direction - to the extent that I can list about a dozen occasions when you have directed personal remarks against me. It appears that I'm not alone in being a victim - see [1] - and I have made no "attack" against since my apology IVoteTurkey
You clearly made an attack immediately above, and the sour grapes of someone caught at massive spamming and harassing me over being caught (link you provided) doesn't prove you are right, just that you are desperate to toss any accusation at me you can think of. Give it a rest. This has always been more about your ego than doing what is right for the articles, drop the chip off your shoulder and either play straight or leave the articles to the people who are willing to work together. DreamGuy 08:52, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

FWIW the entry in Lewis Carroll is far too long in proportion to the credibility of the theory. It is up there with the Bible Code. All that is required is a brief mention and a link. Icundell 14:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh, Icundell, are you looking at a recent version of the article? The Ripper theory was removed and replaced with a brief mention and a link more than a week ago. If you are looking at the current article, I don't understand at all how you can consider two sentences (and a link) to be "far too long". Of course I also don't understand why you are mentioning on this talk page either. DreamGuy 18:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Two sentences and a link? How about two paragraphs and a bunch of links (witht he link to the pertinent article twice)? And it is mentioned here because you cited it as a example of a way to do things. Yet as it stands it is more than is justifiable for a theory that is comprehensively debunked on its own page. Icundell 00:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but there are not two paragraphs and a link. It's two sentences and a link. The standard is to summarize, provide a link upon first mention of the article the link goes to, then clarify that further information can be found under a specific article (instead of spread out). This is how it is done on most of the pages. The second paragraph isn't about the Jack the Ripper accusation, it's a mention that Carroll thought about the killings and had a theory he thought sounded promising. I really question your objectivity if you think the amount of text here is "far" too long. But then it doesn't really matter, as clear consensus has already been reached on that particular topic on that talk page as well as here. Complaining about it further just demonstrates your obvious bias and why your thoughts on the matter should be disregarded as unhelpful. DreamGuy 08:52, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, do you have anything other than an ad hominem? People who have the brass-bound audacity to disagree with you are no more or less biased that you. And NPOV is not a substitute for accuracy. Of course I have looked at the talk page and all I can say is that your concept of consensus is interesting. The link sould read "Author Richard Wallace has claim Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper. See Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend." and, since the article itself can find no merit in the theory, it should be relegated to the Miscellany or See also section in the Carroll article. Icundell 09:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia "Patricia Cornwell" page libelous, being used for felony fraud crimes

The main Wikipedia "Patricia Cornwell" page is not only libelous, defamatory, false and misleading, but it is also being used to support felony crimes of fraud and extortion. The page itself is a felony criminal act of obstruction of justice, because it uses the Wikipedia public forum to give a false report of previously committed crimes. Wikipedia contributors may face felony indictment as well as civil charges by maintaining these materials online.

Demand is hereby made that you stop these criminal acts on the Wikipedia site, and that you remove the libelous, defamatory, false, fraudulent and misleading material that violates Wikipedia's own policies.

The page is the alleged biography page for author Patricia Cornwell, a page which appears to have been seized by partisans under Cornwell's influence or on her payroll. These partisans have authored false and fraudulent material, and reject and delete factual material that displeases Cornwell.

I am Patricia Cornwell's leading biographer, and also one of many victims of crimes committed by Cornwell.

The Wikipedia main page on Cornwell is a brief piece of pro-Cornwell propaganda, which hides and falsifies her long life of multiple scandals. A large part of the page is a libelous attack on myself, with a criminally fraudulent report of the crimes Cornwell committed against me.

As shown in court filings and public documents, Cornwell hired thugs to threaten to have me illegally jailed and murdered, and funded a fraud scheme in a Southern court to try and ban my freedom of speech. Your Wikipedia page falsifies the report of these crimes, and mounts a highly personal libelous attack against me.

Patricia Cornwell is a longtime friend of the President Bush family and some FBI agents, and has used these connections to escape prosecution for a series of crimes and offenses, clearly evident in public records and court documents.

Your Wikipedia page, seemingly written under the sway of the criminal Cornwell, hides the real facts about her life. A few words of sycophantic praise for Cornwell, and then a brief section on "Controversies" which ignores her actual huge history of scandals that is evident from court records and published articles, like when Cornwell was sued for stealing the private autopsy reports of murdered children and copying them nearly verbatim into her novels.

You are invited to read Cornwell's genuine biography, widely available online, "Patricia Cornwell Biography: Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness". Researchers can already have an advance copy of my upcoming biography book on Cornwell, which extensively quotes primary sources and which can background a Wikipedia article to replace the libelous propaganda you have now.

It seems the main purpose of your current short Wikipedia Cornwell "biography" page is to launch a libelous attack on myself, to try and discredit my work and my upcoming major book on Cornwell.

I have tried to begin to edit out the falsehoods and fraudulent statements in your article, but the Cornwell partisans who control the Wikipedia page immediately re-installed the pro-Cornwell lies and libelous propaganda.

The specific attacks on me in your Wikipedia article, are direct propaganda in line with Cornwell's hired thugs. Regarding the specifics of these false statements:

The article accuses me of making public "plagiarism" accusations about Cornwell, regarding a book that she delayed and re-wrote after my private protests. The Wikipedia statements are false, deceptive and misleading. The Wikipedia claims are propaganda, originally laid out by the Cornwell lawyers to set up the lawsuit to ban my freedom of speech, propaganda they set out in a fraudulent article that, as documents show, was planted in the Republican Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper by the Cornwell lawyers themselves. The Times-Dispatch is a newspaper closely tied to Patricia Cornwell, and the "reporter" who wrote the fraudulent article never met me and never interviewed me.

The actual facts are that I publicly criticized neo-Nazi activities by Cornwell, her written threats advocating book-burning and the banning of free speech, and her demands that I be totally silent about her. The Cornwell lawyers have tried to pretend that the controversy was instead about accusations of "plagiarism" after Cornwell already re-wrote her book, accusations they themselves fabricated to distract from the real issues.

The Wikipedia article sneers about the absence of major similarities between Cornwell's book and my earlier novel. But it does not disclose the fact that Cornwell re-wrote and revised her book substantially after my private protests over her announced storyline, and that the publication of Cornwell's novel was delayed for a number of months while she did this.

The Wikipedia article also claims that "neutral" sources view remaining similarities as "coincidental" between the two books. This is false. Such sources are certainly not "neutral". Some similarities remain despite Cornwell's revision, which are clearly not all "coincidental".

The Wikipedia page of course ignores Cornwell's whole proven life of stealing, imitating and borrowing material for her books from outside sources, and Cornwell's persistent lying about these activities.

The Wikipedia page ends with a purely vindictive and libelous attack on me, regarding how I was forced to leave the USA with the ban on my freedom of speech purchased by Cornwell. Cornwell spent a half million dollars funding a fake legal proceeding where both "sides" of lawyers were on her payroll. As the FBI doesn't deny, this was backed by her thugs' threats to have me illegally jailed and murdered, threats documented in writing. With Cornwell's personal friend Bush in the White House, and her friends in the FBI, the prosecution of Cornwell has been politically stalled.

The felony crimes committed by Cornwell's lawyers and thugs are so clearly proven in writing, and beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Cornwell's lawyers do not even try to deny them. Yet your Wikipedia page of libelous propaganda, merely slanders me as someone engaged in "internet harassment of Cornwell", ignoring the several detailed court filings, and the upcoming major book coming out on this criminal scandal, backed by thousands of pages of FBI files and court documents. Your Wikipedia page says nothing about Cornwell's proven threats to have me illegally jailed and murdered, but is glad to slander me with allegations of "internet harassment" because I have helped expose her documented felony crimes.

If you dig deeply into the individuals using the Wikipedia site for these criminal purposes, you may well uncover webmasters on Cornwell's payroll. This is a typical Cornwell crime, hiring little thugs to do her criminal dirty work.

You must keep your information about all the individuals who have been involved in authoring and maintaining the false and fraudulent pro-Cornwell material on Wikipedia. Because these are acts of felony crime and obstruction of justice, you must maintain this information or turn it over to the law enforcement authorities. Destruction of this information is itself a felony act.

Demand is once again made that you immediately stop these criminal acts on the Wikipedia site, and remove the libelous, defamatory, false, fraudulent and misleading propaganda that you have published there in support of the felony crimes of Patricia Cornwell.

above unsigned, but by new member Drlsachs, the person apparently referred to in the article
Sorry, but you'll find that the page is an accurate description. The fact that you would claim otherwise is unsurprising, but then the Wikipedia community isn't imtimidated by people making ludicrous legal threats. The mere fact that you wrote the above proves what the article claims against you. DreamGuy 09:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Legal threats are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. If you are contemplating suing the website for the alleged wrongs that you list above then it is obviously inappropriate for you to continue editing here. If you would like to find non-judicial ways of settling this content dispute, then there are well-developed dispute resolution mechanisms inside Wikipedia. However, threats of legal action make those mechanisms inapplicable. -Willmcw 22:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. A threat, especially anonymous, is not by far the best way to accomplish anything here.

[edit] links to potentially contentious categories

Have removed drunk-driver and gay/lesbian categories. Suggest these should not be reinstated unless proof can be cited. A quick Google couldn't find any reference to Cornwell as a drunk driver and, while here has been speculation about her sexuality, I'm not sure she has ever come out as lesbian. Of course I'm happy to be corrected! Barnabypage 20:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it notable that her agent declines to comment when asked about Cornwell's alleged affair with Marguerite Bennett?

And I did a quick google and found a few DWI/DUI references.

Ref. the agent declining to comment, no, I don't think it's notable. OTOH if there is a category of "writers on gay and lesbian themes" or something like that (as opposed to "writers who are gay or lesbian") she could certainly be included there, as she has a prominent lesbian character - Lucy - in several books whose sexuality is more than incidental.

Ref. the DWI/DUI, what were the references? Barnabypage 15:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We may not know whether or not Cornwell is a lesbian, but it is a matter of record that an FBI agent tried to kill his wife thinking that she was having an affair with Cornwell.[2][3] I'm surprised that we don't mention it at all. -Willmcw 18:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
We should... As long as we stick to the verifiable facts. DreamGuy 03:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I made a stab at it. Please feel free to improve it in any way. -Willmcw 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Coincidentally, The Dec. 12, 2005 issue of the Irish Independent had an interview with Cornwell in which she admits, I think for the first time, "I'm in a stable long-term relationship that I won't go into detail about." When directly asked if it was with a woman, she said, "Yes. So to all these people who think I'm all screwed up about relationships: I'm in one."

It also mentions the former FBI guy threatening to kill a priest and his ex, who was Cornwell's female lover at the time, and other solid biographical information, like the fact that she was molested as a child, anorexic as a teen, in the car crash for drunk driving after out partying with Demi Moore, etc.

Good luck on our parts that this came out right when we were discussing it.

Here's the link: "Me, stalkers and my lesbian lover" DreamGuy 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That is good timing. I guess my modest little edit can be expanded a bit. -Willmcw 08:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The FBI story was the basis for an episode of Law and Order in which a lesbian crime novelist blatantly based on Cornwell is almost killed because of an affair with the wife of an FBI agent.[4] Paul B 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is anything going to happen with the lesbian reference then? It doesn't look as if the page has been updated to include the information provided in DreamGuy's link. - mixvio 03:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The link on footnote 1 [in the body of the article] seems broken as of this posting. Mooveeguy 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite/expansion

Hello : ) I've collected a large number of sources to do a major rewrite/expansion. We need to source every detail of the article using verifiable reliable sources. This will make it easier to keep the false information out. Also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons needs to be followed to make sure the content is accurate and encyclopedic. FloNight talk 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to be rude here, but "DUH" - Of course, that's how all articles are done. But then there is no false info in this article and your claim that there is is troubling. And I'm not sure what you mean by a major rewrite/expansion. Please give details here before you try to make dramatic changes. DreamGuy 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello DreamGuy, I beleive you know that Patricia Cornwell is a target of malicious editing. That is how it came to my attention. This article is very incomplete. It does not cover many aspects of her public life. I want to make sure all the information introduced is well sourced. I believe some of the information in the article is lacking sources. I plan to fix that also. Please do not revert my edits for the next 24 hours while I do the rewrite. I think you will be pleased with the outcome.

The current image needs to be moved down the page. Magazine covers need to be used for discussion about the magazine or an article in them. They should not be used merely to illustrate an article. There are lots of other photos available since she is a master of PR. After I find some that meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I will let other editors choose which one to use. FloNight talk 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I added reference citations for the Sachs case. I looked at the inline link and it appears to go to an authoritative site but I can't really tell, plus there needs to be a backup citation in case the link goes dead. Thatcher131 04:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Good. When I checked yesterday, one of the links in the article was dead. FloNight talk 12:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just trying to help. Per the citation policy, all embedded html links should be backup up by a complete bibliographic reference (title, author, publication, date) for that reason. Thatcher131 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sample of changes

Sample of changes planned by FloNight. This should give you an idea of the scope and quality of the my changes.

  1. Make current image meet Wikipedia fair use guidelines by: a) Adding the following text to the article edit space. -- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -- b) Substituting Template:Fair use in for current tag. c) Modifying the image page to comply with fair use policy. d) Rewriting the image caption. e) Discussing the Richmond magazine article in the text of the article. f) Moving the image down the page next to text discussing the article.
  2. Add a free copyright licensed image of Cornwell to top of article.
  3. Model article after other contemporary American writers.
  4. Rewrite/expand the introduction.
  5. Cite source for article text and remove dead article links.
  6. Discuss awards
  7. Discuss her PR for her new book.

I hope this answers your question. I plan to start work on the article today. FloNight talk 12:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Following the source

Source: "amend the website to remove the offending material"
Article: "shut his website down"
These disagree, please fix. --Zerotalk 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The reference numbers are screwed up; could someone better-versed than I in wiki references fix them? Barnabypage 14:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book sales

Does anyone have any reliable figure on how many books she has sold? Entheta 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of the Dead Release Date?

Originally said to be released on Nov. 28, 2006 (2006 being listed as the date in this article), the release date on Amazon.com has changed to Oct. 23, 2007link -- does anyone have any other information on this? --Somnilocus 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


It looks like the editing that was made on March, the 26th is not very reliable, nor objective...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatricia_Cornwell_5fcf.html"