Talk:Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan

What if we said that in the aftermath, what happend to Hinckley like noe? e.g. he post guitar videos
a Degesh000 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Links
There are numerous issues with the sources in this article:

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/23/60II/main287292.shtml The page cannot be found

https://legacy.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2001/mar/010320.reagan.html The page exists, but the links to the recordings are dead

https://web.archive.org/web/20090331205241/http://www.maniacworld.com/Assassination-Attempt-President-Ronald-Reagan.html There is no video

A thorough review of all the source material might be in order 81.105.46.48 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory information regarding explosive bullets
The opening of the article contains a statement that reads as follows:

'''There is a popular misconception that the .22 ammunition used by Hinckley contained an explosive charge. No such ammunition exist, instead it was most likely a hollow point or soft point ammunition.'''

However, in the part of the article discussing the shooting itself, we have the following:

'''In just 16 minutes, agents found that the gun had been purchased at Rocky's Pawn Shop in Dallas, Texas, on October 13, 1980. It had been loaded with six "Devastator" brand cartridges, which contained small aluminum and lead azide explosive charges designed to explode on contact; the bullet that hit Brady was the only one that exploded. On April 2, after learning that the others could explode at any time, volunteer doctors wearing bulletproof vests removed the bullet from Delahanty's neck.'''

These statements are obviously contradictory; since the latter is supported by two references, perhaps the initial statement that the explosive ammunition didn't exist should be removed. hellkat&#95; (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Information was added in the last two edits of the article and was confirmed to be false. Additions have been reverted. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Eliminate or contextualize description of surgery as "routine"?
I read the footnoted (#50) link for the description of the surgery as "routine", and the article included two falsehoods that are themselves contradicted in the Wikipedia text: the President never went into shock, and he never suffered from extensive bleeding. In fact, the surgery went long because the bleeding was difficult to fix, Reagan lost half his blood volume, and he was in shock when he entered the hospital (but not when he entered surgery). In other words, the linked article is basically a puff piece, with the doctor blowing hot air to reassure the public. I don't think it should be used as a source, or it should be contextualized: "Despite Reagan's blood loss, one doctor described the surgery as 'routine'", etc. 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:E879:4EC:8C2B:38BF (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)