User talk:69.162.182.158

Jim Douglas
See http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS/501090315/1013 - the statue story seems factual. RickK 05:41, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE --69.162.182.158 06:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Just because the lamp story *seems* factual does not mean that the story *is* factual. The summary of the lamp story that was added to Douglas biography is a distillation of myth surrounding the lamp story. It incorporates all the elements that sensationalize the story: the censorship of art; the prude Republican governor; the overzealous staff. While that may *seem* correct, it is not.

1) The Governor asked for the art removed for practical purposes. The office is a working space and the placement of the lamp made it highly susceptible to getting knocked over, broken, etc.  The Governor did not object to the art itself.

2) The Governor did not say it made him "feel awkward"; rather his spokesman said it would be "awkward to explain" to a third grader.

3) The covering of the statue was neither during a press conference nor meant to shield the all eyes from the naked woman depicted. It was done in a non-public staff meeting as a joke -- playing off Ashcroft's infamous covering of the statue at the Dept. of Justice.

The addition of the lamp story seems hardly central -- or even secondary -- to a biography of Douglas. I see its historic interest as fleeting, and far less meaningful than the many other things Douglas has done since assuming office.

Shouldn't we aim for both factual and meaningful articles for the "free encloypedia?"

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2004/12/12/nude_statue_to_be_shelved_in_vt_legislative_session/ http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=2677165