Talk:Andrea Rocchelli

Question

Given that the accused was acquitted, and the source [1] say "All of this refuted the prosecution’s claim that there had been shooting only from the Ukrainian position", perhaps it would be more fair to say that the journalists were "caught in crossfire", as many of the initial reports claimed? Current version say in WP voice they were killed by Ukrainian army. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think that the claim by Myrotvorets website belongs only to page about that website, if it belongs anywhere at all. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I second that.--Aristophile (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I would also argue this page should not include section "Investigation and trial in Italy [of Markiv]" because it is mostly about Markiv and already describe on page Markiv, this is not about Andrea Rocchelli. If the investigation revealed any details about death of Rocchelli, that of course should be included. But I would like to see first if no one will object. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the motivations of the second degree sentence clearly state that the Ukrainian army is held responsible for the murder of Rocchelli.[2] I don't know what the Ukrainian newspapers are saying, but at this point they are to be considered unreliable. I'm strongly contrary to the deletion[3] of User talk:My very best wishes, Myrotvorets it isn't an "extremist web site" it is a website linked to the Security Service of Ukraine (I thought you already knew), and the fact that it is defamatory is clearly of public interest, because it shows the point of view of the Ukrainian state. I am extremely opposed to the removal of this part, which also interested the Italian newspapers. In addition, Anton Gerashchenko, who promotes Myrotvorets, is the one who in Italy has woven relations with Italian political parties to ask for help in providing information for Markiv's release.
Aristophile is the same claiming that the RS Corriere della Sera was spreading "Ru(ssian?)POV" about the motivation of the sentence. Well... ok.--Mhorg (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was the accusation. But given the acquittal, this is probably no longer the official position by Italian justice? I agree that Ukrainian sources can be biased, but so are Italian sources. Do we have mainstream English language publications which connect Rocchelli and Mirotvorets? If not, I think this is simply undue on the page. If website is SBU connected, that's fine. Such info belongs to page about the website. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See my answer about Myrotvorets-Rocchelli[4]. About the Italian justice, the motivation for the sentence says that the Ukrainian army is still responsible for the death of journalists, but that they cannot precisely convict Markiv, due to insufficient evidence. It was established that the shots came from Karachun, and that those mortar shots killed the journalists.[5] [6] [7]--Mhorg (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So, was there a "cross-fire", i.e. someone also fired at the Ukrainian soldiers (as a number of English language RS said), or the Ukrainian soldiers just saw a few civilians and decided to shoot them for an entertainment, as some of these Italian sources apparently imply? My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Precisely: the Ukrainian army recognized the group of civilians and decided to fire at them with automatic weapons, then with mortar fire, which attracted the response of the separatists. The separatists fired at the Karachun, while the Ukrainian army continued to fire artillery against the journalists, sheltered under the base of the separatists, the (coincidentally Italian) ZEUS factory. The artillery shells killed Rocchelli and beheaded Mironov. No, for the Italian justice they did not die from "crossfire", this is the Ukrainian version (strange!).--Mhorg (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So, just to clarify ("sheltered under the base of the separatists"), the journalists obviously came from the separatist side, without asking for the Ukrainian visa. OK, I am a little busy now, and this is probably not a good time for discussion during the standing AE case. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not likely. The last movie recorded immediately prior to the attack (embedded in Euronews story) clearly shows that there was no line of sight with the Ukrainian forces. Moreover, it is easy to hear the conversation in Russian that states the group is caught “in the middle” of Russian and Ukrainian forces exchanging fire from Kalashnikovs. The details of who fired at whom are not available or supported by current sources. Assuming that the shell was fired by Ukrainian forces is a Russian bias. 98.236.89.236 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The correct term was not "sheltered under", but "sheltered near", my mistake. However, what does this have to do with it? Do you want to solve the Rocchelli-Markiv case or know what the Italian justice has declared?--Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly the Italian justice has no double jeopardy clause, so Markiv can potentially be retried.--Aristophile (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I third the point about Myrotvorets. Though it is likely to be used by SBU, Myrotvorets is a crowd-sourced database with an appeal-based error-correction mechanism. As of Nov. 14, 2021, I cannot find anything on Andrea Rocchelli. The general link to Myrotvorets does not support the implied official Ukrainian bias. Moreover, I doubt that anybody had a chance to use this information in the attack on the journalists. 98.236.89.236 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Removals of contents

Hi Mikeblas, about your edit[8] where you write "replace in-use reference deleted by User:My very best wishes; maybe they meant to delete all of this material?", your concerns are also the mine. Please see the discussion above, where I try to restore the links to Myrotvorets (see also the article's tp), which he removed[9] accusing it of being an extremist website (actually a Security Service of Ukraine website).--Mhorg (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't offer an opinion about the veracity of the references used in the article, so I'll leave that for you and the other editors to decide. However, I do know that articles shouldn't be left in a state where they have undefined references and render with user-visible error messages because of those problems. The undefined reference as the issue that I resolved -- nothing more. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this will be fixed automatically by a bot. Is this source good to support the following statement (in WP voice): When they stopped to take some pictures near a railway line, the group was attacked with automatic weapons and mortar fire from the "Karachun" hill, where the Ukrainian army was stationed? No, it is definitely not, and this is a primary source, an original document by an Italian court. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But the actual question by Mhorg is about this edit. Well, Mhorg, I explained the reason in the edit summary ("Placing a defamatory claim about a murdered journalist that was posted by an extremist web site, was a bad idea"). If you insist, you can restore, but it will be your (not mine) responsibility to have such content. In general, I am opposed to propagating any claims by obvious propaganda/disinformation websites, even if they were republished by RS, unless this is something really notable. That claim is not. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally, when you are not familiar with the topic you are talking about, it is advisable to first inform yourself well about the edits you want to implement. The Myrotvorets is not "an extremist website", it is a website of the Security Service of Ukraine, and showing the primary source of what an RS like L'Espresso has reported is definitely relevant. The fact that it is defamatory is part of the controversial (yet another) content that you are removing. What you find written on Myrotvorets is in fact the point of view of the Ukrainian state: that is, that Rocchelli was close to the separatists and had violated Ukrainian laws by entering in the separatist territories. Precisely for this reason that website caused a scandal in Italy.--Mhorg (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If it were an official website/statement by the Ukrainian government (saying "liquidated!"), then yes, we would need to include it, sure. But this is a website created by some shady organization(s) to specifically publish private information and defame people. It does not provide any info about Andrea, it only does grave dancing. I do not see any need to include it. Why? To show what? If you think it demonstrates the complicity of the official Kiev, no, it does not, because this is not an official government website (but yet another reason to not include). My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I checked sources cited on the page. No, they do not say with certainty this is a website of SBU. Yes, Gerashenko was involved. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at "local sources" [10], it appears this is a large serious organization. And sure, the SBU may play a role, but what is this role, exactly, according to good RS? My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Too large section

This page includes very large section "Investigation and trial in Italy against Vitaly Markiv". Well, but he appears to be innocent. This page is about Andrea Rocchelli, not Vitaly Markiv. Yes, he must be mentioned, but only very briefly. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the only reason he is known is for the Rocchelli case. The media talked about it only in relation to Rocchelli so this article can only contain aspects of that story. Mhorg (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"the only reason he is known is for the Rocchelli case". Yes, possibly. Therefore, this belongs to his BLP page, not to this page. If we had a page about a criminal case, that would be different. But this page is a biography of Andrea Rocchelli, not a trial of Vitaly Markiv. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

i agree, perhaps it should be moved to a separate page, but at a minimum it should be moved to markiv's page.

the text as it is currently is written also seems to be one sided, using articles from the italian media uncritically , when retrospectively, there were serious problems that may have leaked into the earlier court cases: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/world/europe/russia-italy-propaganda.html Cononsense (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Zabrodskyi

• [11] - An unnamed person (a deserter from Ukrainian army) said something to Italian journalists who could not independently confirm it, and that is an accusation of murder. It think this fall short of our Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIM requirements for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  It is talked about on the RAI television channels. Please, if you don't know Italian, ask me for information. But don't remove this part. Mhorg (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The title of section is "Accusations [of murder] against Mykhailo Zabrodskyi". According to text of the page " [In the conversation with journalists] the deserter accuses his superior, the commander Mykhailo Zabrodskyi, of having recognized the group of civilians near the railway and of having given the order to shoot with artillery to eliminate them". Is that correct? There is nothing else indicating his guilt. All these sources are Italian. I did check some of them, such as [12], and noted that the journalists do NOT actually claim Zabrodsky was the person who ordered the strike; they just described their investigation that basically resulted in nothing. Even if Zabrosky is a public figure (he was not a public figure at the moment of the incident), this is insufficiently good for including the claim of murder, and especially as a separate section, to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The defector precisely accused Zabrodsky of giving his unit the command to fire the mortar: "L'ordine di sparare sarebbe stato impartito personalmente dal comandante della 95a Brigata, Mikhailo Zabrodskij. I militari, racconta la fonte, hanno utilizzato un mortaio automatico, il Vasilek, che può esplodere quattro colpi in rapida successione." -> "The order to fire was reportedly given personally by the 95th Brigade commander, Mikhailo Zabrodskij. The soldiers, the source said, used an automatic mortar, the Vasilek, which can fire four shots in quick succession."[13] Mhorg (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you confirm that was just a claim by an unnamed deserter about his former commander to journalists. That was published in a few Italian newspapers. That has not been independently confirmed. Like I said, this does not pass WP:BLPCRIME. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

At least read BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures". Yes, he is not only a public figure, but a very important and public figure. And read WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Mhorg (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A deserter accuses his former military commander of a war crime without any evidence. This is published by several Italian newspapers. Is it noteworthy? I do not think so, and it is especially strange to have such section in this page, rather than in BLP page of the subject, Mykhailo Zabrodskyi. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Rocchelli's family has been asking Ukraine to investigate for years and getting nothing. There is a big debate in Italy and requests are constantly being made to Ukraine. When Zabrodskyi agrees to be tried we will know more. It is not possible to remove this, it is a huge media case in Italy, and the fact that all first-class sources are talking about it is proof of that. Mhorg (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

If Italian government has officially asked for an extradition, then it deserves inclusion, I agree. Which source say about the extradition request? My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not as you say, you don't need extradition to keep such important information. We are talking about a murder that is often talked about in Italy by many RSs, and the accusations are made against a very important and public figure. Mhorg (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You just said: "requests are constantly being made to Ukraine...". What requests? Any sources? My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"The demand for truth and justice for Andrea Rocchelli is not a private affair, of Andy's family, but a public affair that concerns the Italian state. Precisely because we are on the side of the attacked Ukrainian people, we believe that the State must demand truth and justice, must energetically ask the authorities of that country to answer the questions of the courts and the requests of the family. The Italian state should do its duty: it should turn to Ukraine and ask for the documents that the Ukrainian state has". This was said by the president of Fnsi, Giuseppe Giulietti.[14] Mhorg (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

So, a representative of trade union made an appeal to Italian government (not to Ukraine!) that it must make an official request to Ukrainian government (not necessarily an extradition request?). But Italian government did not do it. Why? Because they do not have any evidence of the crime or there is another reason according to RS? My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Who knows why the government does not? Perhaps because Ukraine is an ally of Italy? We cannot know. But the entire Italian journalistic world and public debate is centred on this Zabrodskij. Mhorg (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

it seems like parts of the italian media might be biased from the earlier investigation and trial of markiv.

from a report led by Russian human rights NGO "Memorial" (also ukrainian and french participants): https://memohrc.org/ru/news_old/predvaritelnye-itogi-ocenki-effektivnosti-sledstviya-po-delu-ob-ubiystve-fotokorrespondenta

An international working group analyzed the coverage of the trial in the Italian press and notes the negative public background that accompanied it, which could have a negative impact on the observance of the principle of the presumption of innocence.

An analysis of publications prior to the sentencing showed the following trends in the coverage of the process:

General confidence in the “presumption of guilt” of Vitaly Markiv: in a number of publications it was stated that the “murderer” Rocchelli had been detained, without admitting the possible innocence of the suspect.

Frequent use of clichés, stereotypes and erroneous judgments about Vitaliy Markiv, Ukraine and Ukrainians, identification of Markiv and Ukrainians in general with ultra-right forces, operating with erroneous data, both in relation to Markiv (for example, that he was allegedly the commander of his combat unit), and in regarding the Ukrainian political system (for example, that far-right forces are allegedly widely represented in the Ukrainian parliament).

Lack of balance in presenting the positions of the two sides of the process - the murdered and the accused:

in the vast majority of cases, neither Vitaly Markiv, nor his lawyer, nor the Ukrainian authorities / embassy were given the floor and no attention was paid to their position. On the contrary, defense efforts are seen as attempts to obstruct justice.

According to the members of the international working group, such a public background could have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial, in which the guilt of Vitaly Markiv was determined by the jury. Cononsense (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know this report, but it means practically nothing and cannot discredit all the Italian journalists who have covered this case. Bear in mind that the first obstacle to the investigation was the Ukrainian state itself, Italian journalism had nothing to do with it. And it is all documented in the Italian trial papers. Mhorg (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Cononsense, thank you! This is a report by Memorial (society), a valid RS. It said: Судом не дано никакой оценки присутствию и возможному участию в перестрелке членов вооружённых формирований под командованием гражданина РФ Игоря Гиркина (Стрелкова), присутствие которых обнаруживается непосредственно в месте гибели журналистов. Meaning that it could be actually Donetsk People's Republic forces who killed Mironov and Rocchelli. First, there was the case of Markiv, but he was found not guilty. Now they found another Ukrainian commander to blame, with even less evidence. And unlike in the case with Markiv, there was no official investigation, no arrest, no extradition request, and the coverage is limited by only a few Italian sources. I think this does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You are joking, right? It was the judges in the trial who determined that the shots at the group of journalists were fired by the Ukrainian army. Italian journalism had nothing to do with it. I would ask you to inform yourself properly first, before intervening with changes in the article.

Moreover, it is not the Italian journalists who say it was Zabrodskyi, but a Ukrainian soldier. Mhorg (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. This RS say Igor Girkin. Should we include a debate about him on this page? I do not think so. But this can be sourced, just as claims about Zabrodskyi. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Does this RS have anything to charge Girkin with? Do they have any witnesses? Have they done an investigation? The only two investigations carried out are those of the Italian state (which identifies the Ukrainian army as guilty of the murder) and the Ukrainian state (which identifies the separatist militias as guilty). Plus there is this accusation made by a Ukrainian defector. Nothing more. These three accusations are present in the article. Mhorg (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Did any "investigations carried out by the Italian state" identify Zabrodskyi as a guilty party? I understand that the answer is "no". Same with Girkin. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Need better translation

"Illegal the inactivity of the investigator with respect to the preliminary investigation in the criminal proceedings for the fact of intentional homicide [...] For violation of reasonable time limits in the preliminary investigation by action of the reasonable time limits for carrying out the inspection".

Does anyone have a better English translation of this quotation? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Investigation in Ukraine and Myrotvorets

Volunteer Marek just removed the section "Investigation in Ukraine" and the "Blacklisting on Myrotvorets"[15] with the motivation "Npov rs", removing sources like The Times, OSCE, Espresso (la Repubblica). Could you explain further? Mhorg (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaking about first section ("Investigation in Ukraine"), I think it was misleading (the source say about initial or intermediate assumptions by Ukrainian investigators, not their final conclusions as reader would think after reading such text). Speaking on second section, I agree with such removal. If I am not mistaken, there is no any evidence whatsoever his death was connected to Myrotvorets posting. What these guys do is grave dancing. Should we include grave dancing by idiots to biography of a person who died? I do not think so.My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)