Talk:Račak massacre

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

Article is largely pro-Serb propaganda

What a disgraceful excuse for an article.

Let's start with the title: Operation Racak. It implies that this is about a military operation when it is in fact about the specific deaths of the 45 Albanians.

Various reports (Human Rights Watch, OSCE, ICTY) initially characterized the killings as a deliberate massacre of civilians by Serbian police forces.

The use of the word "initially" imples that this judgement was reversed, when it was not.

The military operation was planned and organized by the Serbian Special Police commander Goran Radosavljević "Guri" (meaning "rock" in Albanian),[9] who later received the NATO Security Medal for successful anti-terrorist activity in this operation,[10] which became part of the NATO anti-terrorist textbook.

The source given is not in English, so this can't be verified. The man in question served in Afghanistan and it is more likely that the reward in question was for operations against the Taliban, not the KLA.

The claimed massacre in Račak provoked the NATO governments

Weasel wording.

After the war, the Račak "massacre" was a part of the indictment against Slobodan Milošević and others

The use of quotes is to insert the editors personal POV that it was not a massacre.

but was dropped out of the case because of lack of evidence to substantiate the claims that it was an atrocity.

Completely unsourced.

The incident was the subject of 3 forsenic reports, one Yugoslav, another Belurussian and the third Finnish, the first two concluded that those killed were not civilians.

Completely ignoring the extreme bias that would be expected to come from Yugoslavia itself and Lushenko's Belarus.

The Finnish forsenic report was never released to the public.

Unsourced and more weasel wording. As stated in this article, an executive summary was released. Also, were the other two reports released to the public?

However, Helena Ranta, the head of the Finnish investigative team, later stated in an interview for a documentary of Russian authors that the dead were not civilians.

More unsourced claims.

An eighty minute documentary; The Truth and Lies of Racak, documents the operation.

Why is this notable?

During the year, the KLA conducted a number of illegal actions in the area

I would imagine that the KLA's mere existance was illegal.

They received some support from the French newspapers Le Figaro and Le Monde, which suggested that the KLA could have fabricated evidence.

How could the KLA have fabricated the evidence if the Serb security forces had secured the area? Doesn't this contradict the official Serbian account that states that the dead were combatants. I fail to see how the two quotes shed more light on anything.

The report from the Finnish team, however, was kept confidential by the EU until long after the war

The source given does not prove this.

the team leader, Helena Ranta, issued a press release at the time containing her "personal opinion" and indicating differing and opposite findings.

Compared to what?

The international reaction to the Yugoslav and Belarusian report on one hand, (which supported the view that those killed were KLA,) and that of the EU expert team on the other, (which did not find any evidence to suggest that the dead were combatants)[41] differed considerably, not least in the NATO-countries who were preparing for war against Yugoslavia. The former was ignored or dismissed as propaganda, and the latter was accepted as truth; evidence of a massacre against civilians. Several pro-war activists and writers wrote of, and quoted, the Finnish team's press-release as if it were the actual report.

As opposed, I guess, to the oh so nuanced Serbs who carefully sifted through the evidence before determining what was truth and what was propaganda.

Both reports were used as evidence by the prosecution and particularly by the defence of the Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević in his trial at The Hague, until the Racak case was dropped out of the indictment because of lack of evidence.

Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.71.145 (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. That's why I reverted the article back to its old title - it was changed without consensus in the first place. It's obvious some circles are keen on playing down "incidents" like these, but it won't work. If you look at unbiased sources like the Human Rights Watch report[1], they also depict how the Yugoslav police basically killed anything that moved that day in Racak. Heck, even the Security Council condemned the action and called it a massacre. [2]. Therefore, until we agree upon something else on this talk page, the title stays, while numerous statements in the article have to be checked.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind calling it the "Racak incident" if "massacre" is somehow unacceptable. I just find the extreme bias, lack of objectivity, and unsourced claims shocking even by Wikipedian standards. I will start deleting them myself eventually if nobody can defend them. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Last time when I checked, about a year ago, the article was actually well written and fairly neutral. I guess some people did not like that and went on to change it - drastically. Maybe it would be simpler to just revert it back the way it was a year ago[3]? By the way, why don't you open a user account here at Wikipedia? It would make your job much easier.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Title of the Article

Its almost Certain that no massacre of Civilians took place at Racak; and you know that. For the unsourced claims I would suggest watching the two documentries; The Truth and Lies of Racak and Slobodan Milosevic: Glosses at a trial. As for the title; while it really should be called "The Racak Hoax"; I will change it to the neutral; Racak Incident.King Of The Moas (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we all know that, they killed a 13-year old terrorist and a 70-year old Kung-fu KLA fighter. Bravo. The whole world was fooled, only you know the truth. Read the HRW link above and then come back to hold lessons to us. Even Bogoljub Janicevic, police chief in Urosevac, had to admit on trial that "15 people killed in Račak were terrorists", which means that the rest were all civilians.[4]. I am not against renaming the article to "Račak Incident", but a consensus must be brought before something like that is done. So, let's try to have one, shall we?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How should we call the article?

• Račak massacre

• Račak killings

• Račak incident

Most certainly Incident. I'd suggest you look at some of the Milosevic trial transcripts, A KLA commander in Racak admitted they had used heavy weapondry against police (while another Albanian claimed they only had hunting rifles). Its undoubtable that at least some of the dead were collatoral damage, but its also certain that some (more likely most) died in combat.

Reports

The article appears to contradict itself in several places. For example, it says in the lead that "The incident was the subject of 3 forensic reports, one Yugoslav, another Belurus and the third Finnish, the first two concluded that those killed were not civilians. The Finnish forensic report was never released to the public."

• 1. It was done by Finnish investigators but it was reports compiled by the EU Forensic Expert Team.
• 2. The link above links to the team's findings (released, obviously, at least partly) which includes the following paragraph:

"Most of the victims wore several warm jackets and pullovers. No ammunition was found in the pockets. It is likely that no looting of the bodies has occurred, because money (bank notes) was found on them. The clothing bore no identifying badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed. Shoes of some of the victims, however, had been taken off, possibly before the bodies were carried inside the mosque. Among those autopsied, there were several elderly men and only one woman. There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians."

• 3. The lead goes on to say that "Helena Ranta, the head of the Finnish investigative team, later stated in an interview for a documentary of Russian authors that the dead were not civilians." (unreferenced) I cannot find any source on the internet confirming this, although there are many articles about the pressures on Ranta to infuse the report with politically loaded statements such as describing it as a "massacre" and that the dead were "innocent" civilians. These are two different things. Ranta did not state at the time who killed those people - and how could she - she is a forensic scientist and said that the circumstances are for the courts to investigate - but she never questioned the fact that the bodies she examined were indeed civilians.
• 4. In the "Forensic reports" section it says that "Three forensic examinations were carried out on the bodies, by separate teams from Yugoslavia, Belarus (at the time an ally of Yugoslavia) and Finland (under the auspices of the European Union). The three reports did not differ significantly regarding any of the forensic facts." If the Finnish one was never released (as the lead states) how do we know they do not differ significantly? And if we know from what had been apparently released that Ranta had said the killed were civilians, how does that mesh with the other two who reports which - the article says - claim otherwise?
• 5. Helena Ranta explicitly said (in regards to calling the event a massacre) that "Such a conclusion does not fall within the competence of the EU Forensic Team or any other person having participated solely in the investigation of the bodies. The term "massacre" cannot be based on medicolegal facts only but is a legal description of the circumstances surrounding the death of persons as judged from a comprehensive analysis of all available information." but the article then quotes the Serbian pathologist who said for the BBC that "Not a single body bears any sign of execution," Dr Sasa Dobricanin said - "The bodies were not massacred.". So it is pretty clear that by "massacre" Dobricanin and Ranta talk about two different things here - Ranta is talking about the circumstances of the killings (which she and any other pathologists is unable o determine from examining the bodies), whereas for Dobricanin the mere fact that the people do not appear to have been executed (e.g. any close-range gunshot wounds are absent) meant at the time that it was not a massacre. Can this be clarified in the article? Also, I can't find any links to the apparently released full reports produced by the Belarus and Yugoslav teams. Timbouctou (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ranta came clean a few years later and admitted the dead bodies belonged to terrorists, if three forsenic reports all say the same thing I think the title of the article should be changed to either The Racak "incident" , "case" or "hoax" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zStIWgH600 King Of The Moas (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the documentary (for which you provided us the link with) is 20 % truth and 80 % propaganda, at best. Helena says this in the clip (if we can trust the Russian dub): "Those bodies belonged to the terrorists, Serbian soldiers and to the inhabitants of the village". So, she basically once again confirms what everyone was trying to tell you, that civilians, ordinary inhabitants, were killed in Račak. KLA admitted 9 fighters died there, which means the remaining 36 were civilians - a ratio of 1:4. One big question in her sentence that puzzles me, though, is when she mentions "Serbian soldiers". Since no Serbian soldier was killed in Račak, I think she wasn't even talking about Račak! Seems more as if they edited her words into something like that Homer Simpson interview when he was defending himself from sexual harrasment.

She goes on to say: "This report that you see has not been published as of yet", but when I was expecting to hear what she has to say that is new in the whole situation, they just cut on to move to Kosovo again. So, weak. As someone already observed, when you have 45 people killed on one side, and only one injured on the other (the Serb side), then it is obvious that the place was not so well defended by arms. Or to give another food for thought: imagine just if Croats or Bosniaks killed 45 Serbs in a village in 1991 or 1992 and said they were all "just terrorists", while almost the whole world would say otherwise, would you honestly believe that?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Name - "massacre"

Considering the ongoing controversy of this delicate issue and the fact that the ICTY had failed to find ANY evidence of an atrocity here, as well as local Kosovar investigations, it is completely unjustified to call it a massacre. --AVNOJist (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:POVTITLE and then do a Google search. There are more sources referring to it as a massacre than any other combination (be it "incident", "hoax" or whatever). There's also copious amounts of evidence that at least some of the persons killed were civilians. Timbouctou (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Improper wording

"It is widely disputed whether the operation at Račak was either a massacre of innocent civilians (as put forth by the heavily biased Kosovo-Albanian government) or a battle, in which the dead were KLA combatants (as put forth by the Serbian government and allies)."

So according to this passing the other viewpoint is only proposed by "the heavily biased Kosovo-Albanian government", and the other by "the Serbian government and allies". No neutrality here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.223.51 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is extremely biased and improper. The whole article is rather odd, but this sentence really gives it away. It's not about information, but disinformation. Mr. Sextus (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the article was not in too bad a shape until earlier this year. Since then it's gone downhill a lot, obviously at the hands of Milosevic apologists, and now needs pretty much a complete rewrite. As a start, I've removed the absurdly POV claims that the IP editor above highlighted. Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So called "Racak Massacre" is a faked farce to call upon NATO bombardment of SR Yugoslavia in 1999.

As a forensic toxicologist I have followed this incidient and have found numerous evidence of obviously faked crime scene. Futhermore this was confrimed by Finnsih Expert Ranta in her report and the preassure she had endured from certain elements in international community and NATO to produce a favourable report to this case. Another expert from VMA Serbia's most respected medical institution Dr Zoran Stankovic today health minister in Repbulic of Serbia also concluded that the Racak incident was faked by the albanian side to cause a international outrage wich later lead to mounstrous 78 day bombing of a soverign stante of SR Yugoslavia.

Namely bodies were discovered in unnatural poses which do not match the positions in which bodies should be after being shot dead by fireing squad which has been claimed as a way of exection. There has not been found blood on or underneath those dead bodies, again a massive inconsistancy with the claim. No spent shells were found from the alleged fireing squad. Entry and exit wounds do not match alleged balistics. Entire report is full of evidence that this massacre never happened. It is criminal that people are still talking about this incident and claim that it is legitimate where in fact science has proven that this was a set up. This set up was most likely done by UCK an albanian terrorist organisation in Kosovo to legitimise and call for NATO strikes on Yugoslavia. One question remains unanwered is who do those bodies belong to? were they killed just to be placed there as a mock up? were they dead Serbian civilians dressed in as albanians? when you know that UCK and albanian terrorist organisation was capable of kidnapping and murdering Serbian civilians in Kosovo and then cutting them open and selling their organs on black market to which Mr Dick Marty produced an extensive report to european union, then nothing is how it seems. Entire Kosovo Albanian political elite are members of heroin trafficking mafia, many of them were on interpol lists in 1980's and 1990's all of a sudden they became statesmens, ministers, and diplomants over night? How? Those answers i leave to every unbrainwashed person to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)