Talk:Roberto Calvi

message: The citation for the introduction of the Banco Ambrosiano Scandal is linked only to the term "Opus Dei." One should find a credible, relevant source that supports the same correct information, and replace that citation instead. Fhoffman1206 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Errors

message: The real reason why Calvi was assassinated was because he knew huge CIA funds are being moved across Vatican banks to finance the Solidarity's fight to topple the communist regime in Poland. He protested that such acts are incompatible with the Vatican Treaty and could result in the destructive persecution of the entire catholic religion if exposed. 195.70.32.136 08:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvi had to die because of the solidarity of the CIA 

message: Lets blame Iran...and say Saddam was in on it, then we could link it to Osama and say Hugo Chavez financed it. 
Dean [Mar04, the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six]
EXPLANATION: Mafia Expert has twice deleted references to a recent case of another corrupt, Opus Dei associated Italian banker (Gianmario Roveraro) also found dead under a bridge. Mafia Expert is certain that the two cases are "TOTALLY UNRELATED" and seems unwilling to let users see the cross-references. The discussion is set out below.  
Also removed - without discussion - was a reference to the manner of Calvi's death - "without ground below [the victim's] feet, and without heaven above his head". References to an alleged masonic oath providing this punishment were reported in the press at the time of Calvi's death.  
REQUESTS: (1) Third party comments on the appropriateness or otherwise of including the additional reference and external link (to the London Times). 
(2) That both my sets of edits be reinstated, thus reverting the page to this format: page with WikiFlier's edits and external link
Thank you.  WikiFlier 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Mafia Expert did not twice delete the reference to Roveraro, but only once. The second time it was deleted by somebody who apparently agreed with my deletion. I would appreciate a rectification on this. Mafia Expert 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now murder, 21 years later! AyeOk, spell skullduggery

message: Vatican Bank (which is often referred to as the Istituto per le Opere Religiose or Institute of Religious Works),
The Istituto per le Opere Religiose or Institute of Religious Works is often referred to as the Vatican Bank as IOR is the legal name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.192.95 (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: Was the verdict in the Calvi trial a surprise?  The Times article at  says it was, but this is a media comment rather than a fact.  I removed this from the article because it seemed not to be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  In many ways, the verdict was no great surprise because it was based largely on the word of Mafia informers long after the event, and it would have been more of a surprise if the defendants had been found guilty on this type of evidence alone.  For these reasons I have reworded the article slightly.--Ianmacm 16:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To many it was a surprise because the case seemed to be very solid from the start due to the evidence from pentiti. That is why I reverted it back again. It gives some flavour to the expectations of finding the final truth about the case that were frustrated by the verdict. I think it is important to reflect that. - Mafia Expert 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot agree with expressing the verdict in this way.  Evidence from informers is traditionally weak, and it would have been very surprising if the judge or a court of appeal had allowed a guilty verdict to stand purely on word of mouth evidence.  Although the verdict was seen as a surprise in some quarters, the need for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means that comment cannot be portrayed as encyclopedic material.  Please reconsider on this.--Ianmacm 09:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We are becoming bogged down on an unimportant issue.  What matters is that the five defendants were all acquitted on the order of the judge.  It does not matter either way whether the verdict was a surprise, as this is a comment rather than a direct report of what happened.  As CP Snow said: "Comment is free, but facts are sacred."   The main purpose of the previous edit was to make a distinction between comment and fact, which was fully in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.  It is OK to point out that some or even many people regarded the verdict as a surprise, but this should be expressed as a comment rather than stated as if it were a fact.--Ianmacm 11:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not denying that some people regarded the verdict as a surprise.  However, whether it was a surprise or not does not alter the fact that the judge threw out the charges.  I also accept that Calvi's death was probably murder rather than suicide.  On a personal note, my recollection of trials in Northern Ireland has made me wary of trials where evidence from informers is the only major source of evidence.  There is a risk that evidence may be given to settle old scores, and one person's word against another person's  is not strong evidence, particularly long after the event. Verdicts by Diplock courts are regarded as controversial, since normal rules of scrutiny of evidence by a jury have been bypassed.  Even if the evidence of the Mafia pentitos such as Francesco Marino Mannoia was given in good faith, it would be difficult to verify it after such a long period of time.  All that I have tried to do here is to keep the wording within Wikipedia guidelines.--Ianmacm 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we do not disagree that much. I just want to express the fact that it came as a surprise to some. But I guess we have solved that, although I changed the wording: "some quarters" is a bit vague, I changed it into observers. In Italy testimony of a pentito has to be backed up by facts and circumstances. The testimony alone can never lead to a conviction. I think your comparison to Diplock courts does not really apply here, but you are right in saying that 25 years after the killing it would be difficult to find the evidence to back up the testimonies of the pentiti. - Mafia Expert 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main reason why the judge threw out the charges is likely to be the lack of corroborating evidence.  This means that there must be some independent evidence backing up the oral testimony.  Without this, a verdict in a criminal trial would be considered unsafe and unlikely to be upheld by an appeal court.--Ianmacm 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surprise verdict?

message: I removed "said to have links to Gladio, an anti-Communist NATO stay-behind organization involved in the strategia della tensione during the 1970s and 1980s. " I see no mention of those links in the reference. One can link every scandal in Italy with everything, but these kind of giant conspiracy theories generally do not help to understand what the different actors interests are. If there is no better link I suggest to put this kind of statements under Further reading or See also (it is already under that heading anyway). - Mafia Expert 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link specifically mentions the strategy of tension.  It is not my aim to endorse speculative theories, only to point out some of the things that have been said in conjunction with Calvi's death.  Philip Willan's recent book contains theories that would be regarded as speculative and unverified by Wikipedia standards, but people should be able to read about them and make up their own minds.  However, I am not going to argue about this edit.--Ianmacm 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the repeated insertion of conspiratorial notions about Operation Gladio and its relationship to terrorism is a sham, all across Wikipedia. Making use of the "strategy of tension" notion is a nice way to not have to live up to factual information for claims to be made. On another note, Francesco Pazienza is not mentioned yet in this article... Intangible2.0 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links with Gladio 

message: This link has been removed because it runs into problems with WP:EL.  When a person clicks on this link, what they get is no real information about the Calvi case other than a "buy it now" link for Philip Willan's new book.  This is clearly not in line with Wikipedia policy.  The ISBN of the book is already mentioned in the article, and a link to a newspaper review of the book for good measure.  There is no need for the external links section to be used as an online bookstore.--Ianmacm 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be going round in circles on this.  In my opinion the link is unacceptable for the reasons given above, and also because direct links to personal websites are discouraged by WP:EL unless there is a good reason.  It would also be helpful if the IP-based user who keeps adding this link identified themselves and discussed their rationale on the talk page.  It is becoming boring to remove this link repeatedly, although it does seem to be a violation of WP:EL.--Ianmacm 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to philipwillan.com

message: :Image:Calvi.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Calvi.jpg

message: Anyone interested in making a diagram of all this?  Actors/interelationships  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.74.90 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: Is there any reason why the year is included in the section titled "Films about Calvi's 1982 death"? It suggests he died in more than one year. If no one objects, I'm going to edit "1982" out for being redundant. Marshall Stax (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A question of redundancy

message: Can anybody please help improve this article (and the Licio Gelli one), by indicating what, if anything, has happened to the reported second investigation since June 2007? Tlhslobus (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, but I already provided that information: In May 2009, the case against Licio Gelli was filed. According to the magistrate there was insufficient evidence to argue that the former head of the secret Masonic lodge P2 had played a role in the planning and execution of the crime. - DonCalo (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, DonCalo, and my apologies for not noticing that it was already there. I've now copied the information to the Gelli article.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, do you by any chance know what precisely is meant by 'the case was filed'? I suspect I may not be the only reader who is not too clear about what this means. Would it be incorrect to say the case against him was 'dropped'? If that is incorrect, can you think of any other expression that might clarify what is meant? Please note that 'a case was filed against him' normally means 'a case was brought against him', which seems to be the opposite of what is meant here. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Filed in terms of archived... But maybe dropped is better. - DonCalo (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What has happened to the second investigation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roberto Calvi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312002313/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=234872006 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=234872006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does someone know why Calvi lost so much of the mafia monay? That is the reason why he has been killed or committed suicide for sure.
I heard a reason once, that the monay was lost during a funding of a political campaign outside of europe and that the monay was not fully repaid during
"religious issues". Well, i dont know if it was Calvi or annother christian banker later in time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8A80:88C:1C1C:896:CF00:3B9D (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason why the bank lost so much monay