get. I can't figure out what point of view an article >called "Turks and Kurds" could possibly express. So I recommend it as neutral. I would also say that [[Violence against >Kurds]] could be neutral, as well. [[Turks and Kurds]], eh? Wow, that's *clear... So, expanding on the tone of [[Turks and Kurds]], perhaps: [[Turk and Kurd relations:From cordial handshakes to ethnic cleansing]]... Lets say not. *Violence is better - at least it *says someting.. but its unfitting... You seem to be saying that the word "atrocity" somehow cannot neutral, that one's genocide is another's *military campaign.. but I dont buy it. *Atrocity is as neutral a term you can get. It describes the killing and torture of human biengs, from the Japanese raping little of girls and hanging their parents by their tongues in Nanjing, to the use of Palestinian refugee camps for target practice... its all the same.. The only reason people feel squeamish in using the term "atrocity" is because they know its *Not POV: Rather its a term that can be equally applied to everyone... So... the carpet bombing and napalm-spraying of Vietnam, killing an unknown number of the 1.6 --- 3.1M VN people killed between '65-'75, could also be called an "atrocity" - so could the droppings of fatman and littleboy be considered "atrocities" as well. This is not to say that there wasnt *justification for each of these... just that the pain and suffering inflicted by human beings upon other human beings is describable, without any pretext of injustice... How can the killing of 1M people in any way be *justified? Its beyond the issue of *justification, just as are the perpetrators are themselves, moreoften than not, beyond *justice... An atrocity is what it is.. atrocious. -SV