Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Knight (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Stephen Knight)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebrotherhood.jpg

[edit]

Image:Thebrotherhood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death?

[edit]

ISTR that he died of a skiing accident in the Alps, and was researching the connections between the Mafia and the Masons at the time. Can somebody confirm this? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he died of a brain tumour - nothing to do with skiing at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.83.104 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were some wild accusations that he'd be murdered by Masonic interests (Illuminati, Bilderberg, ZOG, alien lizard people, whatever). While these are undoubtedly piffle, should they not be mentioned? AuntFlo (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age

[edit]

It's amazing how young he was when he wrote his first book, considering how detailed and well-written it is. I wonder whether this should be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.68.95 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - he was 25. Anyone who studies to be a jounalist should be capable of doing this, and therefore I would not say it is unique - also look at the size of the average undergraduate dissertation at uni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.83.104 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]