Talk:Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan/Archive 1

Untitled
Added some info on Hinckley's motivation for the assassination attempt, ie his obsession with Jodie Foster and the movie Taxi Driver. My rain face 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think many viewers would like links to video-sources of the event to really see the kaos that erupted and the speed Reagan was rushed away with. 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Zarkow

In which part of the body was Reagan hit by the bullet: the stomach or the chest and was it on the left or the right side? (User:isbellmichael)

Discharge?
When did he recover and act as the POTUS again in the hospital?

When did he walk out the hospital? -- Toytoy 04:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems as good a place as any to ask this: There is a quote in the article that "Reagan wiped the blood from his face, exited the limousine and walked unassisted into the emergency room..." I found it difficult to believe that a 70 year-old man who had just been shot and was coughing up blood would be allowed to walk unassisted, so I went looking for a source. The cited article does not report that chain of events. The only source I found that sounded similar at all was from Michael Deaver's book. Considering Deaver had an interest in and has shown a propensity to mythologize Reagan, is this reliable enough? It looks like Reagan myth building, and it annoys me. I'm probably biased, but does anyone else think this is overly dramatic and probably inaccurate? Wuicker (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If the cited sources don't support the claim, the claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.60.120 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The inevitable conspiracy theory
I added it in under the section about Al Haig, since it seemed to follow on in natural sequence. (So far, no one has pointed out the umbrella visible in the photo, but that can only be a matter of time ... :¬) Garrick92 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be removed as it links to a home made website as its citation...not exactly reliable Macutty 18:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on verifiability most of the conspiracy section should be removed. geocity website don;t meet wiki standards, nor due a couple home made websites that seem to re-publish the same info. If no one responds over the next few weeks I'll make the edits. Macutty 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Himmler connection

 * Hinckley is also the grand-nephew of former Gestapo head Heinrich Himmler, and is thought to have been used as a pawn by a network of ex-Nazis seeking revenge on Reagan for his WWII espionage.

I removed this sentence, feeling that such a bold statement needs to be verified to warrant inclusion. Nufy8 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference provided by the anon redirects to the History Channel's Web site and, more specifically, to its video gallery. I searched for audio and video related to Hinckley, Himmler, and the Reagan assassination attempt, and found nothing that spoke of a connection between the Gestapo head and this would-be assassin. If there's something I'm missing, please point it out. I'm reverting the addition for now. Nufy8 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Slight difference
The bullet that hit Reagan is variously said to have ricochet-ed off the bullet-proof glass in the car window and off the painted metal side of the car. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Three seconds are mentioned but the true figure seems to be more like two seconds.{unsigned}


 * It ricocheted off the window - I saw the limo at GWU Hospital ~20 minutes after the shooting and photographed it... Mark Sublette (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure that Wikimedian Commons would welcome your contribution of the photo! Ylee (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "All" I have to do is find which box it's stored in in my 10 X 65 foot warehouse after I moved from D.C. to S.C. last year! Mark Sublette (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Haig's quote
Haig's quote "I'm in charge here" is incomplete. He said we was in control 'pending the returns of the Vice President, keeping in contact with the VP & pointing out the VP was executively in charge'. GoodDay 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haig actually was correct. Everyone always focuses on the line of full sucession, but that was NOT the issue- if Reagan had died, Bush would have taken over, no one is questioning that. But Reagan had NOT died, and Bush was away in Texas. The crisis was in the executive branch, and Haig was in charge of the White House at the time. He certainly lost his temper, but he was right in what he actually said. CFLeon (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unedited"
Supposedly unedited footage has a three-second gap in it, from my point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.62.19 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

GA failed
I have failed the article since it has multiple citation needed tags. Please add inline citations to the statements requested by the tags and any other statements you think someone would question for verifiability. Please renominate it after you have addressed this, as the article shouldn't have too many other major problems. --Nehrams2020 00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, on my talk page you said that this article didn't have any inline citations. There are currently 31 of them. There aren't very many 'citation needed' tags, so what's the problem? --Wasted Sapience 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article cannot have any "citation needed" tags at all to pass, so that is why I failed it at that time. I'll look this article over again later this week, unless somebody else reviews it before then. --Nehrams2020 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have any "citation needed" tags right now, although I wish I knew how to reference the same source more than once in the article using those ^abcde things. --Wasted Sapience 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time I reviewed it earlier, it did have those tags, so it's good to see that they are gone now. To use the same reference all you have to do is create a title for the reference, with something like  and put that before the first instance of the reference. Then you put the after the statement you want to cite. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples. --Nehrams2020 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, the screenshot for the film needs a fair use rationale. --Nehrams2020 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, could you just go ahead and add one? I don't know where the templates are. --Wasted Sapience 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vice-president
I find it strange that in an article on a nearly successful assassination attempt, during which control of the executive branch was (momentarily) disputed, Vice-President Bush barely rates a parenthetical mention. All I know is that he was in Texas at the time, but having a little more info would help put Haig's hip-shot in better context. --Tysto 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After searching through New York Times and Washington Post archives, I'm unable to find any more information about that. He was traveling, he was in Texas, and he flew back to Washington after Reagan was shot. There just isn't much more to it than that. --Wasted Sapience 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He addressed the media from the White House press room, saying the something to the effect The American government is functioning fully & effectively. GoodDay 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
The article looks very good, but just needs a few things fixed before I'll pass it.
 * 1) Add a few more wikilinks throughout the article for some terms a reader may not know about such as dean, Greyhound,
 * 2) The screenshot still needs a fair use rationale, add something like what is found at File:Anchormenweapons.JPG. I can't add one since I am reviewing the article. In the fair use rationale be sure to mention it is for the use in a historical event that can't be duplicated or something to that effect.
 * 3) "ATF agents found out in 16 minutes that the gun was purchased at Rocky's Pawn Shop in Dallas, Texas." Consider adding "in 16 minutes after the assassination attempt".
 * 4) It appears the license of File:Reagan recovering after being shot 1981.jpg needs to be updated; choose the correct license from the options listed.
 * 5) Not really a big deal, but change Air Force 2 to Air Force Two.
 * 6) "The not guilty verdict led to widespread dismay [26][27], and, as a result, the U.S. Congress, and a number of states, rewrote the law regarding the insanity defense [28] ." Fix the spacing of the inline citations, they go directly after the punctuation.

These are all relatively minor to fix and shouldn't be too much of a problem. Let me know if you need any help with any of them or if you need further clarification. Fix these within seven days and I'll pass the article. Alert me on my talk page once you have fixed them all. --Nehrams2020 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This should all be fixed now. --Wasted Sapience 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

GA passed
Excellent work on completing all of the above suggestions in such a short time period. I have passed this article as a GA according to the GA criteria. Good job on the article, and consider improving other articles to GA status. If you have the time, please review an article or two at GAC, we currently have a backlog of over 135 articles that need to be reviewed. --Nehrams2020 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Wasted Sapience 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Link
I removed the following link, [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17819453.html?refid=hbw_rd Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands: the Brady law and the limits of regulation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology], because it is far outside the scope of this article. That link may be appropriate for the Brady Bill article, but it certainly doesn't belong here. --Wasted Sapience 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Assassinations
Maybe there's a consensus already established that I'm unaware of, but I'm not sure whether failed assassination attempts properly belong in this category. Perhaps a "failed assassinations" subcategory would be more appropriate? Redxiv 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear War
Could we please have some more sources and citations about the nuclear war paragraph? --Wasted Sapience 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Me?
I had to remove the link to the article because it is a copyright violation and therefore should not be linked to in the main article. I'm unable to find the text of Why Me? at Esquire's website. The text of Why Me? can be read here. Please keep this on the talk page for reference in case of future archivals. --Wasted Sapience 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan diary excerpt reflecting on day
There are many news stories reporting about Reagan's personal diary. Here is an excerpt on the assassination attempt that could possibly be integrated into the article somewhat. You'll have to search for your own sources though, this was from within a gallery on CNN. --Nehrams2020 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Left the hotel at the usual side entrance and headed for the car -- suddenly there was a burst of gun fire from the left. S.S. Agent pushed me onto the floor of the car & jumped on top. I felt a blow in my upper back that was unbelievably painful. ... I walked into the emergency room and was hoisted onto a cart where I was stripped of my clothes. It was then we learned I'd been shot & had a bullet in my lung. Getting shot hurts."

"He recovered quickly?"
Hardly....it was months before Reagan could work a full schedule -- his recovery was very slow, with several setbacks, and the full nature of the seriousness of his condition, while concealed from the public at the time, has been well-documented in several books since. Someone with far more free time than me might want to start by consulting "The President Has Been Shot" by Herbert L. Abrams (W.W. Norton, 1992) and correct/expand that brief one-sentence reference to Reagan's recovery. StanislavJ 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gunshots in hospital
In the tv movie (supposedly researched) someone came into the OR where Reagan was in surgery and fired several rounds from a pistol. No arrests were made and no suspects found. However, if it did happen, it does deserve a mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, someone got past all those police and secret service agents - and what 'tv movie' was that? LOL. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article and added a source as well. Overall, the article has maintinaed its quality since I passed it in March. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau
Who keeps adding in Pierre Trudeau? The Canadian Prime Minister wasn't in Washington DC. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, here's proof: 132.206.203.9 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've (again) removed the bogus claim. For the record, 61.215.110.114 is the editor who inserted it this time. YLee (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Exploding bullets
This article claims that one of the exploding bullets exploded, which conflicts with John Hinckley, Jr., which says that none did, citing The Exploding Bullets, by Pete Barley and Charles Babcock, Washington Post, 4 Apr, 1981. Jfire (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

George Bush assures the nation
Does anybody have words from Bush's opening remarks to the press, (following his return from Texas)? If so, could they add it to the article? GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Succession
This seems to be confusing uncited speculation.Roadrunner (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * However, The National Security Act provides for the Secretary of Defense to act as the "Principal Assistant" to the President in those matters of national security. While the interpretation of this point of law is certainly unclear, it would seem that the Secretary of Defense by de facto circumstances, would be placed in charge of the national welfare, until the 25th amendment of presidential succession may be invoked. Though the National Security Act of 1947 originally did include this clause, it was repealed in 1962.

More needed on the shooting's effect on Reagan
The article alludes to Reagan mostly being absent as President in the aftermath of the shooting (e.g. spending, supposedly, 2 hours per day in the office) but more material is needed. Tempshill (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote
"As history, the Wikipedia version of the Reagan assassination attempt reads like a CIA moonlighter’s script for a movie of the week. " - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski June 16, 2009 (Nb: not to make any point ... just an interesting remark that seemed it should be part of the record)Twang (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Breathing knees?
"Complaining of difficulty breathing, Reagan's knees buckled, and he went down on one knee." I know Reagan was a remarkable man, but I did not think he could breathe through his knees, nor could his knees complain. I amended the wording. --John (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you speak English? Buckling knees doesn't imply that Reagan breathes through the knee! Having said that, this article is full of errors and opinion. I liked in particular the "cut off their patient's "thousand dollar" custom-made suit to examine him, angering the "tightwad" Reagan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Post-assasination hospital quote: "We're all Republicans today"
Just a few minutes ago, an edit changed the quote from "We're all Republicans today." to "We're all Republicans today, Mr. President." - neither version included a reference or citation. Briefly searching online, I found a at least two references to a third version: "Today Mr. President we're all Republicans.", one from PBS,, the other from [http://www. ronaldreagan.com]. The former seems authoritative, the latter less so. Any thoughts? I am considering being bold and make the change (and insert the citations as references).

The Shooting
In the "The shooting" section, it says that all the bullets missed The President. I would fix this myself, however, I'm not an expert on the subject so I think i'll let someone else do it lol. Just putting it out there. SashaJohn (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says that all six of Hinckley's shots missed his target, President Reagan, which is accurate. As it goes on to explain, one of the bullets ricocheted off Reagan's limousine and hit him, but Hinckley himself missed every time. YLee (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make the sentence clearer by saying something about how none of the shots directly hit The President, but that he was hit by a ricocheting bullet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.226.249 (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Family Connections" section
This seems irrelevant. It's already in the Hinkley article and I propose deleting it from here. Adpete (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm going to delete it. None of the external links or refs on Hinkley's early history mention it. If reliable sources don't consider it important than neither should we. It's only mentioned in the context of conspiracy theories, so we should either cite a "reliable" conspiracy theory or drop it altogether. I'll leave it in the Hinkley article though. Adpete (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is needed. Otherwise Hinckley is presented as a random person, whose family is unacquainted with the Bushes. There is no indication from citing this fact of any conspiracy, it is simply an often overlooked fact in his story, and should not be omitted from any history of this event. Please leave it in. Jocelynbeale (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He was indeed a random person, whether or not his family knew the Bushes. As you yourself say there is no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy, but mentioning it in this article unduly implies that there is one. As stated, the topic is disucssed at John Hinckley, Jr., anyway. Ylee (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

title change to "1981 Washington shooting"
User Andy the Grump wrote that people can find the article so the title is ok. He wrote that about the Congresswoman Giffords shooting but his logic applies here. The majority of people find fault with the Tucson title but a few people insist. Therefore, I come here to seek an opinion for this article.

Proposal: Change the title to "1981 Washington shooting"

Logic used for the Tucson article: People can still find the article, Reagan was not the only one shot.

If you don't want it changed, provide a valid reason. By treating all articles the same way, we will have a uniform Wikipedia, not a mismatched style of willy nilly behavior. As for me, I favor equal and uniform actions first. Secondly, I favor the current "Reagan assassination attempt" but this is secondary. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) ✅ Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's been explained at Talk:2011 Tucson shooting that the two events differ significantly.  —David Levy 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from accusations. This was discussed and after 3 days, there was no opposition, so 100% consensus.  There should be uniformity in titles and the two events don't differ much.  Giffords was the target as was Reagan.  Both trigger men are suspected to have mental problems.  Neither have been convicted.  Brady was shot as were some Arizonians.  Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. No, this wasn't discussed. You didn't include the standard move discussion template, so the above message went unaddressed.
 * 2. By your own admission, you favor the title Reagan assassination attempt. You moved the article to a different title to make the point that an unrelated article should be moved (in your opinion).  That was inappropriate.
 * 3. Your comparison is absurd. The perpetrator of the Tucson attack clearly intended to shoot numerous people (and did).  The other eighteen victims—six of whom died—didn't all get in the way of Giffords.  —David Levy 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

flaw in article: what was Hinckley charged with?
It says he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Doesn't say not guilty of what? Murder, terrorism, manslaughter, being disrespectful to a president, gun possession, etc.

Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible confusion in links
I was reading up on this to find the weapon used in the assassination attempt. As such, the mention of it being a .22 links to the .22 Short cartridge, when the firearm in question appears to be for the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. Further research all points to it being a .22LR, thus the article linking to .22Short is confusing and incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonTBright (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

release of radio traffic from command post of Secret Service
I think the release of the Secret Service tapes is notable to cite in the text of the article, not just in the description of the events of the day. Also, an external link at the end is easier to find and useful for people who would like to find the primary source and look to the end of the article for external links. Warfieldian (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The transcript is a valuable source; I am glad you brought it to Wikipedia's attention, and it is now cited within the body of the article. The details of the transcript's release--when, why, etc.--are not WP:NOTABLE in comparison, and do not deserve special discussion; FOIA requests and government releases of documents many years after the fact are routine. Now, if the Secret Service had fought the FOIA request for some unusual reason, or it turned out that the transcript showed some startling new information that contradicts what we already knew about the assassination, that might be another story. However, as it stands, the details of the release are not important.
 * The transcript should also not appear as an External link, as doing so for a cited source violates WP:EL. The .mp3, on the other hand, is not cited, and I agree is not inappropriate as an EL. YLee (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing transcript from external links and keep mp3 is reasonable.  The release of the documents and audio is sourced in multiple reliable secondary sources as a notable occurrence and certainly warrants a brief mention in the article.   Warfieldian (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not! Again, documents published for FOIA requests are common. They often occur on anniversary dates after major events because journalists often write "30 years ago" or "10 years ago"-type articles and request government sources to use. This is routine and does not ordinarily deserve special discussion, and a thousand cites of the same details don't make the action WP:NOTABLE.
 * Note I said "the action", not "the documents". The transcript, and the associated Secret Service documents--which I hadn't known about until you pointed them out--are interesting and worthwhile sources. The associated documents need to be integrated into the text as I've already done with the transcript, though, not carelessly stuck at the end, any more so than we do with any other source. Again, the documents are notable, not the logistics. I'm not going to risk WP:3RR--something you're facing as well--but I hope you or someone else accepts the challenge of integrating the other documents into the article as a whole.YLee (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue about it with you anymore. It was not carelessly stuck on the end of the article.  Warfieldian (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Information completely wrong
Hey guys I don't know how to edit with links and everything or i would do it myself but the entire first paragraph is wrong. I am no history buff but regan wasnt shot on christmas day nor was the assasin a tennis player. X Erevis Cale (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt fix! 155.94.62.222 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Gun traced sixteen minutes after attempt is wrong
Hey everyone -- I think that the claim that ATF traced the gun 16 minutes after the assassination attempt is wrong. The full NYT article cited is not available for free, but in the excerpt they mention that the gun was given to ATF on March 31, the day after the shooting, and that once they had the gun it took sixteen minutes to trace. I have updated the article accordingly. Pkrecker (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
Studys show that the secret service set up president reagan in 1981 then took down the shooter to make them look good — Preceding unsigned comment added by STONER688 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. Winged Brick (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Regurgitating POV
As someone is very keen on including the claim that Reagan had a physique like a 30 year old body builder, here are a couple of useful references:

200.104.245.226 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good grief. No, no one claimed that Reagan could have won Mr. Universe at the age of 70. That said, evidence supports the conclusion that Reagan was in remarkable physical shape, presumably including his share of muscles. How do we know this? BECAUSE HE SURVIVED A VERY SERIOUS GUNSHOT WOUND AT THE AGE OF 70, made a complete recovery, and served two full terms as president. "30 year old body builder" is exaggeration, but one that graphically communicates this to readers. Given that it is from a cited, reliable source (and stated ten years after the fact; it's not like the speaker was trying to burnish the reputation of someone still in office), as long as it's stated as a quote (so readers know Wikipedia is not saying it's necessarily the literal truth) it's acceptable to have in the article. PS - "I don't like it" is not reason by itself to remove something from Wikipedia. Ylee (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, clearly he was in good physical shape, and the article clearly states that with reliable sources to back up the claim. Adding hagiographic puffery and reporting it as if it is fact contravenes NPOV.  200.104.245.226 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Image of Hinckley gun
The gun displayed at the regan library is not the real weapon used in the attempt. its a replica. for clarity suggest saying so. Source of this is the head of PR for the library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.6.231 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The six bullets in the photo seem to be live. If so, they can't be the ones that were fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.32.1 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking of removing it. It is not a RG-14. It is another type of cheap german Saturday Night Special. Here is a pic of the actual gun: https://damnuglyphotography.wordpress.com/tag/rohm-rg-14/. Figured I'd say it here before I deleted it (though I don't know how to upload and get this pic instead because I'm new to Wikipedia). glm.moulton 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208102056/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/4.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311122756/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/7.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070225031918/http://usinfo.state.gov:80/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h1025_en.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h1025_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310230233/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/11.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070129135553/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/2.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/john_hinckley/2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Cover up
The Secret Service Cover Up section contains the sentence: 'Wallison added, "My view now would be that as soon as there is a problem and the president was shot at and hit, the people in the White House were wrong." ' This sentence, whether it is accurate or not, is meaningless. Speaking about the risk of a future possiblity (danger to the president) can never be shown to be wrong by the event's occurance, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc (fallacious) reasoning. In addition, Wallison apparently mixes present tense with past tense: his view now would be as soon as there is a problem and ... was shot ... people..were wrong. Absolute rubbish. It should be removed, it adds *nothing* to the article.Abitslow (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the entire section because it is a copyright violation. I would have removed it even if it wasn't because it is highly WP:UNDUE and it treats what is essentially a solitary op-ed piece as fact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ronaldreagan.com/march30.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Release date
Someone added July 27, 2016 as John Hinckley's release date but he has not been released yet. That is the date they ANNOUNCED he will be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.178.1 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Location of Timothy McCarthy's Injury
I don't have access to the two articles cited for the location where he was shot but I found a source that states otherwise in the Wikipedia section. He states "I was hit in the chest and the bullet went into the lung, liver and diaphragm. And the common picture shows me grabbing my abdomen, but that’s down where the liver was when it went through the liver. That’s where the pain was at the time, but actually I was shot in the chest" Source: http://www.voanews.com/a/victims-recall-reagan-assassination-attempt-30-years-later-118953314/174624.html

I'm not aware if this has been in one of the edits and I'm not submitting it. I'll leave that for anyone who chooses to do with it. --Inthe80s (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The sequence of shots is wrong.
The first two shots are correct. The 3rd shot did not overshoot and miss, the 6th shot did. The 3rd shot hit the agent in the abdomen. The 4th shot hit the bulletproof glass, the 5th shot hit off the side of the limo and struck the President, and the 6th and final shot was wild and missed high. The correct sequence of shots is in a youtube video detailing the attempt. RPoling (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

_West Wing_ similarities
It would be relevant to add that in _[The West Wing]_ episode "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen (Part I & II)", fictional President Josiah "Jed" Bartlet is similarly diverted from the White House to George Washington University Hospital after the Secret Service Agent discovers that one of the fired rounds did indeed hit the President. YearginSM (talk)

Actually, it sounds like the West Wing's portrayal was largely inspired by this assassination attempt. I remember reading that one of the advisors to the show was a member of Raegan's security detail from the incident; not to mention Josh's injury was similar to Raegan's, the same confusion over "who's in charge" takes place, and the diversion to the hospital. This isn't a great source, but it's a start: westwing.wikia.com Zahan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721062144/http://www.secretservice.gov/press/GPA02-11_CommandPostTranscript%20.pdf to http://www.secretservice.gov/press/GPA02-11_CommandPostTranscript%20.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522150733/http://millercenter.org/academic/oralhistory/news/2007_0330 to http://millercenter.org/academic/oralhistory/news/2007_0330

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This specific rewording came late in the discussion, and there haven't been too many comments on it in particular, but the point about ambiguity and consistency with similar articles seems sufficient to go with this title instead. --  tariq abjotu  15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Michael Deaver?
Reagan's Deputy Chief of Staff, was standing just FEET AWAY from where Hinckley was shooting, and he had much involvement after, why not MENTION him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.48.255 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Reagan assassination attempt → Ronald Reagan assassination attempt – Should first name be added? George Ho (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Reagan (disambiguation) does not list another individual as notable as Ronal Reagan, and Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan. AldezD (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I understand the argument about Reagan's notability, and the fact that Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan is especially noteworthy. However, compare to Assassination threats against Barack Obama (and Obama) or—pardon me—Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler (and Hitler). --BDD (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". --McGeddon (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Reading list of people in Reagan (surname), there were no attempts to assassinate other people of the same surname. Assassinate a porn actress? Well, I checked articles about people of more prestigeous occupations (Judge or politician), and found no record of assassination plots except Ronald. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ylee (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. Just saying oppose doesn't count for anything. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Consistency with articles about assassination attempts on people. In all cases I observed the full name is employed. Given the subject's name is Ronald Reagan and not Reagan I don't see any issue here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Reagan may well redirect to Ronald Reagan but no one's going to propose moving the Ronald Reagan article to Reagan. There's a certain sense in using the full Wikipedia article name in other articles which relate to that person. A person's article should be where their Wikipedia name (if you will) is decided and other article's should follow it for consistency. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per BBD -- Ե րևանցի talk  03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Omitting his given name gives the article title a tone that is too informal. Per Blue-Haired Lawyer, we don't have the article about the person at Reagan, although he is the primary topic for that term. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Qualified support I don't think the entire form of the title, and similarly situated titles, works well in English. I am certainly not implying that anyone who knows who Ronald Reagan is will think that Ronald Reagan attempted the assassination of anyone, but that is the way the title naturally parses: Ronald Reagan acting as the perpetrator of an assassination attempt on another. To put it another way, an article about John Hinckley, Jr.'s acts could easily fit under the title "John Hinckey Jr.'s assassination attempts". As such, I think all articles like this one should be at either the form "Attempted assassination of _____" or "Assassination attempt(s) on ______", which makes it clear the target of the assassination is the person mentioned. My qualified support is only that I certainly think the title should use his full name, for reasons suggested by others, regardless of the ultimate destination.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan" seems worth considering. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me too. It would parallel articles on successful assassination attempts such as Assassination of John F. Kennedy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The article on the man is at Ronald Reagan, so it seems logical to use that name in articles about him too. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per BDD. It is usual to use first and surname when naming someone for the first time.  Move to Assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan per Fuhghettaboutit.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302175446/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/taxidriver.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/taxidriver.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119162313/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hbio.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/HBIO.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020803230701/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyaccount.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyaccount.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108054234/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/jfostercommun.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/jfostercommun.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914170410/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hinckley in photo montage
Where is John Hinckley in ? --Viennese Waltz 15:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Over aggressive edit of Portrayals in Popular Culture section
@User:Sundayclose: What is your proposal for revising this section? I added two small music examples as a minor edit both of which were in the same style of the previous music examples and of other examples in other sections. The edit done in your recent revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan&type=revision&diff=981162556&oldid=981160597) has gone ahead and removed a much larger section of this assassination in pop culture than what I touched claiming it's "unsourced". I normally wouldn't dispute this but other "unsourced" examples remain in the subsections above your edit (e.g. Books and Stage subsections). Was this a selective edit or did you not want to include the other similarly unsourced items?

For context, I was following the precedent set in both this article as well as other articles on this topic like in Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture. If you think everything needs a citation, that's fine, I'll just restore the previous edit and add some cn tags where appropriate and begin to add references to these items. Cmahns (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The items were reverted per WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That's not "over aggressive"; it's policy. Feel free to restore with citations.
 * As for "other 'unsourced' examples remain in the subsections above your edit", feel free to tag, discuss, or remove any unsourced information in any article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the edit in 981226656, I think you are splitting hairs on this. I tried to keep the revision explicitly around the Reagan specifics of the Suicidal Tendencies song and removed the Sadat mention from the original line and based on your message you're now implying because Hinkley wasn't mentioned explicitly in the song it shouldn't be on this page. The article is about the assassination attempt on Reagan, not Hinkley himself. I didn't try to add I Desire by Devo for example, which makes no specific mention of Reagan as the lyrics are lifted from Hinkley's writings.
 * For the WP:V claims, the small mentions of lyrics, like "I Shot Reagan" which is the alternative title of this song, falls under fair use as per my understanding of WP:Lyrics and poetry (see one of the examples cited of "good" lyric use, Hey_Ya!, there is a direct quote of the lyric "What's cooler than being cool" and "fellas" lacking external citations but are pointed out because they're relevant. As an aside, I can further link this song to other items discussed in the current text article as the lyrics also mention the character in the song shooting Pope John Paul Francis II and John Lennon which are both mentioned in the current revision of the article, along with the mention of shooting Anwar Sadat that was present in the first revision of this as Sadat fell victim to an assassination in the same year in a similar manner, but chose to minimize it to just Reagan for my recent revision.
 * Again, I'm following wiki precedence set by similar articles of assassination attempts and assassinations of US Presidents like the aforementioned JFK assassination link and for other references in this same article that lack explicit citations. The only difference I see between that page and this one is that was broken out into its own page because of the size. I know you're a prior editor on that page and you haven't disputed every other uncited source there or outright removed them. I would like to resolve this as I do believe these songs and other mentions removed belong on this page, namely given Reagan's influence and infamy in the 1980's punk scene and how his assassination influenced certain artists. Cmahns (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I continue to disagree that the edit is properly sourced. Please read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". When there is no reference to Hinckley or his attempted assassination of Reagan, you are synthesizing your personal conclusion that the song is explicitly about Hinckley or the assassination attempt. That's not "splitting hairs"; it's clearly based in policy. This is a Good Article; to maintain that status proper sourcing is mandatory. Feel free to restore the edit with a better citation or a consensus here. And once again, the fact that I haven't disputed something else is not really relevant. I am not required to dispute everything to remove one edit; there's no need for us to repeatedly argue that point. You or anyone, however, are free to tag, discuss, or remove any unsourced information in any article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

James Brady initial injury
There is no citation, nor any really available information to suggest the bullets Hinkley fired had a "small explosive charge" in them. The notion itself off having explosives in a .22 LR bullet is ridiculous. 2600:1000:B042:96F3:B962:F769:ECEF:2324 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)