This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
the dispute over the neutrality of the "controversy' sectionedit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's been three years. In the figuratively black and white issue of the racist characteristics of this inscription, there has been no clarification or analysis of what isn't neutral about the "controversy" section.
This is probably because the inscription is definitively racist. If there is any substance to the claim that the inscription might not be racist, thus calling into question that labeling this issue as debatable, three years is plenty of time to explain why.
Hearing no explanation, can we dispose of the "neutrality" dispute?
The dispute over the neutrality of gravity is more valid than this. Roadmaster44 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
the neutrality of the initial description of the monumentedit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I dispute the neutrality of the terms "general" and "generals." "Traitors" is a clearly legitimate descriptive title for leaders of a failed, illegitimately conceived secession from the Union costing the lives of 630,000 citizens of the United States of America.
I further dispute the capitalization of "Confederacy" and "Confederate" as these are more like descriptors of this collection of traitors, than they are legitimizing titles. Roadmaster44 (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
