Talk:Remarks by the President at a Memorial Service for Victims of the Shootings in Tucson, Arizona

Information about this edition
Edition:	Daily Comp. Pres. Docs., 2011 DCPD No. 00019, pp. 1-5 Remarks at a Memorial Service for Victims of the Shootings in Tucson, Arizona
Source:	DCPD-201100019 - FDsys:GPO's Federal Digital System.
Contributor(s):	Various
Level of progress:	Proofread and corrected : 75%
Notes:	The President spoke at 6:43 p.m. in the McKale Memorial Center at the University of Arizona. In his remarks, he referred to suspected gunman Jared L. Loughner; Emily Nottingham, mother, and Kelly O'Brien, fiancee, of Gabriel M. Zimmerman; Capt. Mark E. Kelly, USN, husband of Rep. Giffords; and Tucson residents Bill Badger, Roger Salzgeber, and Joseph Zamudio, who helped subdue Mr. Loughner.
Proofreaders:

Hello!

It seems that we may have 2 pages of the same speech. Barack Obama's speech at the Memorial for the 2011 Tucson Shooting Perhaps we should merge these two pages. Lilly granger (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2 versions

Hi. Shouldn't there be a mention somewhere that the speech as delivered differs from the version issued by the White House prior to the event? Orwell, are you there? --Kenatipo3 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (I wasn't logged in when I made edits to the earlier version).

If such nuances exist between the GPO post-speech release and what the Mooseknuckle Wisconsin Dispatch reported that day - and they are of such an Earth shattering nature (as well as published copyright free in the public domain), then by all means please let Wikipedia know about it so we can point to the differences.

I skimed the two versions and the italics part seemed to match anyway. -- — George Orwell III (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I just thought there should be a little note somewhere on the article page pointing it out. "Gabby opened her eyes", for example, was not in the White House version. --71.246.238.214 04:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC) AKA Kenatipo3

White House version???? Are you under the impression a pre-event press release or blog post on WhiteHouse.gov is an "official" version or something just as respectible?

Yes, frequently WhiteHouse.gov "releases" mirror or eventual become part of the well-established and universaly accepted Presidential records-of-fact published as the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, but by no means is this always the case - this being one of the instances where the prepared pre-event speech, posted/blogged for the benefit of the public at large and the press at hand, was not the version actually given and therefore moot.

The only way this "White House" version becomes relevant, in my view, is if there is any question to WHEN changes between the prepared, the spoken and/or the published versions took place - the fact that a line or two was added when given at the event only guarantees that the Government Printing Office version "should", not only include the additional line or two, but a more accurate word-for-word transcription overall. Only this version is "officially" attributing the content as published to the President as given.

Had the GPO's WeeklyCPD (or the more recent DailyCPD) published versions omitted something actual spoken by the President at the event, even though that omitted part appears online in a blog or a press release, you cannot attribute the content to the President because it was not actually spoken by him.

Also, in most cases today, modern news & newspaper transcriptions retain copyright protections and cannot be hosted on WS as well.

You may ask yourself if this ommision is part of a cover-up, a sign of poor-speech giving skills, maybe it was a broken teleprompter???.... NOT Wikisource's mission --> please take soul-crushing issues such as this to Wikipedia for debate and further analysis where they belong. :-) — George Orwell III (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No need to have apoplexy on my account, old man. As you say, the issue is moot, as the WH website now has the speech as delivered. Thanks for your time. --Kenatipo3 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One more question for Orwell

Hey, should the level of progress still be 50%? --Kenatipo3 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed. note: That portion of the Proofreading project is being phased out for transclusion of page-scans instead. It's more about linking to reliable & accurate sources and providing citation info for Users to copy and paste into their own projects. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)