WikiProject Biography | ||||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- I second that.--Aristophile (talk) 23:37, 20 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)
- 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)