Talk:Račak massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

First two paragraphs

These are obviously in need of spelling and grammar cleanup, but are also not very sourced, and arguably not very neutral either. I'd do the spelling/grammar cleanup but it would only serve to add more weight to questionable text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizofaus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad name

I'm sorry, but it's not a good name. It was a battle between a legal force and a band of terrorists.

The story of an atrocity repeated so much, but they were never proven, and the ICTY prosecutors attempted but failed to prove that there was a massacre of civilians during the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, for example. We shall see how the rest of the group is sentenced, but I think there is no doubt the ICTY shall acquit all of them in Racak's case. --ZvonimirIvanovic (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this issue has come up before. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires us to be neutral in matters such as this. The Albanians call it a massacre, the Serbs call it an incident; if we use either "Racak massacre" or "Racak incident" we are effectively endorsing one side's point of view. What everybody can agree on, though, is that there were a number of killings - hence the name. Compare Borovo Selo killings and Haditha killings. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, Serbs would probably rather call it "Racak anti-terrorist operation". You are claiming that the title that is already a compromise ("Racak incident") is a POV in order to move it closer to your POV. Nikola (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the accustaions against the KLA because they came from an extremely unreliable source, a Serb blog favouring Greater Serbia and Milseovic. Please in future only refer to BBC, Sky and CCN or western democractic free press thankyou. Billy Bollox (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Billy Bollox, you inserted several PoV statements ("invaders"), wrong statements (you changed "Yugoslavia" into "Serbia", which is wrong, in 1999 Serbia was part of Yugoslavia). Therefore you have no real basis for such patronising tone. Szopen (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't "Yugoslavia" me. Everybody now knows that Yugoslavia never truely existed. It was never a country. It was just an artificial conglomeration of different states and nations drawn up by the international community. Unlike France and Germany which are lands of nations, Yugoslavia was a state for Croats, Serbs, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosnians, Muslims, Kosovans and Montenegrins, all ethnically different. More so, it was dominated by Serbia and the Serbs, so you can see why once the Iron Curtain was lifted and Yugoslavia lost it's backing from the Eastern Block that all the trapped nations wanted to set themselves free from the agressor. Milosevic was responsible for the modern wave of Serbian nationalism which fueled the conflicts, and so he sent his Serbian military to invade all the other republics, and Kosovo was one of those. How can you say that he never invaded Kosovo when Kosovo is ethnically Albanian yet those terrorists inside the country which were expellling the Albanians were reported to be SERB. They never came from Kosovo, they were sent there from different parts of Serbia which makes it an invasion. I don't want to hear stories about Montenegro being part of a so-called "united state" because it is plain obvious to anyone with any brains why Montenegro was a part of it. Being a small nation, and seeing the horros of what was going on around them, the Serb terrorism in all the other republics, culminating in the Srebbrenitza massacre, you can bet they never wanted to show their real desire for statehood. As for Serbia, look at the map of Greater Serbia and you'll see that Montenegrin annexation is a full blwon part of the evil plan. Billy Bollox —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

NPOV

Wikipedia should stick to NPOV but right now this article has a title that favours the Serbian side, therefore I added a NPOV tag to make this clear that the title is disputed by me and other editors. I also question the use og Serbian government documents in the section where we descibe what happend in Recak before the Serbs sloughterd more than 40 innocent(they weren't convicted for anything) Albanians. --NOAH (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The article has strong pro-Albanian POV. I mean,

One of them, the BBC's reporter Jacky Rowland, reported that the dead "were all ordinary men; farmers, labourers, villagers. They had all been shot in the head."[6]

which is patently false, discredited by both the international and the Finnish forensic reports.

Said Serbian government documents are uncontested and perfectly acceptable reference. If you have any other reference that describes crimes committed by terrorists from Racak, feel free to add it. Nikola (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Finnish team says they most probably were civilians. They can not say we are 100 % sure they were civlians because they did not see what happend when the massacre occured. They weren't present when the Serbs massacred those innosent people. --NOAH (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it did not. That was just personal opinion of Helena Ranta. Nikola (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Nikola. The "massacre" title is strongly pro-Albanian stance, and it was used as propaganda tool for gethering support for bombing Yugoslavia Szopen (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Szopen, if you had read the article or just had used less than a second to take a look at the article title you would have seen that the title does not contain the word "massacre" but "incident". And when I made the comment above I referred to the title with the word "incident" in it. I think, independenlty of my natioanlity, that massacre is the right word since 44 innocent people were massacred, but since some thinks massacre may be partial, I believe we should use "Racak killings". The current title is pro-Serbian and is downplaying the brutal and inhuman mass killing of 44 inncont people. --NOAH (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NOAH, I am disputing this: "Wikipedia should stick to NPOV but ___right now this article has a title that favours the Serbian side___, therefore I added a NPOV tag to make this clear that the title is disputed by me and other editors." and "before the Serbs sloughterd more than 40 innocent(they weren't convicted for anything) Albanians" not the article itself. In other words, I thikn that making it more "NPOV" in your opinion will in fact be more pro-Albanian POV. Szopen (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No need for any form of a dispute. Why not call the page "Racak genocide?", after all, was that not what it was? the killing of 50 icconect civilians? X Ray Tex (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Definetely it wasn't. First, disputed is 1) how many of killed were innocent civilians (or maybe part of them were UCK fighters, as pro-Serbian side claims) 2) the way they were killed (in massacre, or during fight - during fight also civilians sometimes get killed, when bullets are flying innocent victims get harmed too). Forcing point of view of pro-Albanian side (i.e "they surely were civilians killed in cold-blooded massacre") is not NPOV. Also, read the definition of genocide. Killing 50 people does not constitute genocide. Szopen (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments show that you believe this was constructed, you think the same way as the Serbs and has therefore a reason to no aacept making the article more neutral because you are supporting 100 % the Serbian version of this massacre. Racak killings is not a biased title and should be the title of this article.--NOAH (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments clearly show that you believe it was massacre of innocent people, and therefore you think the same wat as the Albanians, and you support 100% Albanian point of view. Szopen (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

YES, I believe they were innocent people. They were not convicted for anything and no report has proven them being anything else than pure, innocent civilians. They were innocent and died innocent. This can not be changed by what someone who when this massacre occured may have been drinking Vodka thinks. About time to reconsider your revisionist thoughts that equal with those of David Irving, the infamous Holocaust-denier.--NOAH (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbian side claims they were killed KLA fighters, and others may be killed accidently. Civilians sometimes die during fights - and there were fights in Racak. You seem to ignore this point of view (supported by French TV crew for example), and insist only your POV is the only truth. Szopen (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The title "Račak killings" is POV because that says that the Serbs just felt like killing dozens of people one day and did so, which cannot be proven. The word "incident" implies that people were killed for reasons not completely known. --Local hero 02:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you don't know what the word incident means. Incident means that you do something by accident. This did not happen by accident but after direct order from the Serbian goverment. W. Post reported this by the way. Racak killings means that people were killed in Racak. The most NPOV would be massacre since this is what it was. A massacre where innocent people were killed. Please try to be objetive and do not be blinded by pan-Slavic natioanlism as some of you are. --NOAH (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Incident usually means an occurence or an event. People were killed in Račak. But were all of these people innocent or not? That question cannot be answered. Thus, "Račak killings" is not appropriate because it tells the reader that the 'almighty barbarian Serbs' squashed the 'defenseless inhabitants' of Račak for absolutley no reason, which is POV. As for being blinded by nationalism, it takes one to know one. --Local hero 19:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sreten Lukić, one of the particpants of the Racak massacre…

…was just condemned to the jail by the ICTY.--BalkanWalker (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't found guilty for the Racak massacre. The Racak massacre was dropped from the indictment, because there was no evidence to prove that a crime was conducted in there in January 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Incident?

This is a strange word to describe the massacre. Shouldn’t the name of the article change for a more realistic and common description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.94.195 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts and figures

Some people here are talking about neutrality.

This is nothing, but some side story from people who sell politics in wikipedia. And the most strange thing is that admins and stewards are blind when comes word to those sensitive topics. So I clearly say: SHAME TO ADMINS AND STEWARDS who have seen this topic and stay away thinking that they are neutral. In the streets would sey B. Sh..

However, I'll collect information from that article and convince you that the title is just a "play mind title".

From the same article:

First reference uses the word massacre at the article and not incident.

Second reference uses the word massacre at the article "Racak/Recak" and not the word incident.

Third reference is not existing at all.

Fourth reference describes one massacre and not one incident you can read this by your self.

Fifth reference title is "World: Europe Nato crisis talks on massacre", no need to read more.

Sixth reference title is Jacky Rowland. "Kosovo massacre: 'A twisted mass of bodies'" BBC News", no need to read more.

Seventh reference uses the word massacre several times, and not even in one place incident.

Eighth reference title is "Serbs rewrite history of Račak massacre", no need to read more.

Ninth reference title is "Serbs snub massacre probe" , no need to read more.

So I will not post one by one other information, but I'll collect it in figures: in all references and links added to this article, what happened in Recak 21 articles regard it as an massacre, and 5 as an incident (are not taken the repeated articles).

You are using "massacre" articles to create "incident" and blame others for their reactions?

Are you talking about neutrality?

Shame on you. Puntori (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. 3 of 5 sources which call this as an incident are Serbian people or medias.Puntori (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was a Massacre

What is Massacre? To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter - limited to the killing of human beings. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre Bosniak Racak Massacre is named as RACAK MASSACRE in documents and places on the UN ICTY web site, including this page http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p401-e.htm talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

However, the case was dropped by the ICTY because there was no proof at the trial, so linking it to the prosecution of an alleged massacre, which was never proven, isn't a good source.

Massacre or Incident?

I think the term "massacre" is one-sided. It does not respect the HUGE amount of controversy that follows this event and general lack of evidence. Proving that it had happened at the ICTY ended up as a failure. Adopting the word "massacre" for usage is direct acceptance of the Albanian version of the still unresolved question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVNOJist (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas. When applying names to chapters in history, particularly political events, no matter which name you give the article it will still appease one party and discriminate the other. We have to take into consideration the title by which the episode is known in the popular press, and it is invariably referred to (in the WP "reliable sources") as Račak massacre - even by those that observe the alternative views. Evlekis (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Evlekis. Good to see some neutrality in editors. If 45 people killed is an incident, then how many must die before it becomes a massacre? Z Victor Alpha (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a massacre. And this was not a definition just from “the Albanians” and “American mass media”, but from the United Nations Security Council in 1999: Press ReleaseSC/6628, 19 January 1999: SECURITY COUNCIL STRONGLY CONDEMNS MASSACRE OF KOSOVO ALBANIANS IN SOUTHERN KOSOVO--BalkanWalker (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but it was later said there was no proof surrounding the incident. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The ICTY has not found enough evidence to directly connect Milošević to the Račak massacre. But, that doesn't mean that massacre never happened.--Mladifilozof (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is www.arhiva.srbija.gov.rs, a site from the Serbian government, a NPOV reliable source?

I don’t think so. --BalkanWalker (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty vs. ICTY

According to the Amnesty International site,used as a referece,in Račak was Forty-five ethnic Albanians killed. The victims included three women, a 12-year-old child and several elderly men.

According to original indictment against Milošević,used also as a reference,of 45 victims,there is 2 (not 3) women,a boy was 13 (not 12) years old and there is 2 (not several) old men.

Who`s right and who`s wrong? CrniBombarder!!! (†) 12:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

contradiction

On the one hand you have a title with "massacre" instead of something neutral and later in text we see this "Various reports (Human Rights Watch, OSCE, ICTY) had characterized the killings as a deliberate massacre of civilians by Serbian police forces.[6][7] The Yugoslav government maintained that the casualties were all members of the Kosovo Liberation Army killed in a clash with state security forces. The military operation was planned and organized by the Serbian Special Police commander Goran Radosavljević "Guri" (meaning "rock" in Albanian)[8], who later received the NATO Security Medal for successful anti-terrorist activity in this operation[9], which became part of the NATO anti-terrorist textbook[9]."```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarovid (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

New title

In light of forsenic reports, I think it would be a good idea to give the page the more neutral name: "Operation Racak" due to the fact that there was not substancial enough evidence to prove what happened at Racak was a Massacre, the titles; Racak Hoax or Racak Massacre are biased and it would be a better Idea to let the readers decide for themselves whether what happened in the village was a hoax or massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gradwell (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

The claim that the Racak Massacre was a 'hoax' is pretty much conspiricy theory nonsense, broadly equivalent to the claim that the Markale Massacre was staged by the Bosnian government. Consider the following points;

Eyewitness testomony, including Serb sources, though varying is some details, was near unanimous in the view that it was a deliberate massacre. These interviews were carried out by a respected human rights organisation (Human Rights Watch) by an investigator who had no love for the KLA. There was no ammunition found on any of the bodies and it is unlikely that there was any looting, as they still had money on them. The kill ratio was 45 Albanians killed and 1 Serbian wounded. Even if this were a battle between the US army and the Taliban, this casualty ratio would raise some eyebrows. However, the Serbian army was not very well trained, and the KLA were defending their home turf, with the element of surprise and a strong defensive position. The absence of casualties among the security forces is extremely suspicious ALso, despite Serbian Government claims that several dozen terrorists wearing UCK insignia were killed, 'the clothing bore no badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges of rank 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.' (According to the Finnish investigation and this very article). Phone taps show that the Serbian government tried to cover up the events at Racak by claiming that it was a staged event. The lack of wounded is a telling sign. Only about four wounded Albanians are reported. An official Serbian report claimed at first 15 KLA killed, and later several dozen. If it had been combat, there should then also have been scores of seriously wounded. This is not typical for pitched battle, where the wounded usually outnumbers the dead. If it was accidental, why are there so many civilian dead? Civilians do get killed in crossfire, but typically not in large numbers, as they usually hide and take cover. For example, in Vietnam it was unusual if 20 people were accidently killed in an infantry attack on a VC village, with hellicopter and mortar support. This is especially suspicious as there were only around 300 people Racak at the time of the massacre. Although she refued to characterise the events as a 'massacre' due to the legalistic nature of the term, the leader of the Finnish team described the action as a ‘crime against humanity’, and that there was no evidence that the victims were anything other than civilians. Nothing from her team has ever contradicted this characterisation of the events. Furthermore, carrying bodies is much more difficult that people think, especially for a military force which presumably after losing 45 people without managing to kill a single Serb solider, would have been defeated, demoralised and exhausted from fighting. As a practical matter, to coordinately plan and haul bodies (100-200 lbs. each) to a far side of town in the dark, while supposedly redressing them in civilian clothes is very difficult and requires a lot of effort. This is especially the case as there were no tell-tale trails of blood, or night-time vehicle lights, nor of any reports of the KLA moving bodies. It should also be noted that for the Muslim Kosovar Albanians, this is considered a particularly henious form of descecration. Neither the KVM miniters, nor the reporters on the scene, found evidence that those who died were killed in battle. The Finnish team leader stated that they were all killed at approxomately the same time, which is unlikely in a battle or a crossfire. Parafin testing done by the Yugoslav and Belarussian reports are known to be extremely unreliable for testing for gunpowder residue (this has been known since before the assasination of JFK, and it's not admissible in court). The Finnish investigators pointed out thatusing modern methods revealed there to be no evidence that any of victims had fired weapons prior to death. All of the bullets found by the Finnish investigators were found in the ground directly beneath the bodies. In an ordinary combat situation the bullets would have been more likely to penetrate the bodies, flying further away. Perhaps most striking is the fact that the Serbs actively obstructed the ICTY investigation, which is hardly what an innocent party would do. The claim that they must have been KLA members because some woere several layers of clothing is laughable, as in Kosovo during January it is very cold, at times reaching colder than -10 degrees celcius. And, although it can't be proven, the fact that the bodies were left unsupervised between 17 and 21 January increases the possibility that they had been moved and tampered with by the Serbs. At least 24 (out of 40) of the victims suffered head shots, and most of those had suffered a combination of head, chest and abdomal shots, this is quite unusual in combat, especially as almost all the victims had been shot more than twice.

Although the Finnish forensic report of 2001 can be described as inconclusive (it says that only one was provably shot at close/contact range, although it doesn't define how close 'close range' actually is) and it wisely reserves judgement like a medical report should do (unlike the obviously biased and paritsan Yugoslav and Belarussian reports), I'm afraid the circumstantial evidence for a massacre is pretty overwhelming. Most of the 'evidence' that those who claim that it was a hoax is either pure conjecture with no evidence whatsoever to support it, or can be easily explained. 17:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Ana Radic (talk)

File:Racak, Kosovo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Racak, Kosovo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Racak, Kosovo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2012 (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)