Talk:Augusta Confederate Monument

the dispute over the neutrality of the "controversy' section
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)

the neutrality of the initial description of the monument
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)