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<ref name="ReaganTime"> and put that before the first instance of the reference. Then you put the <ref name="ReaganTime"/> 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, 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: [1]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, nonan, Peggy. "Character Above All: Ronald Reagan Essay". Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 12 October 2009. To the doctors, "I just hope you're Republicans." To which one doctor replied, "Today Mr. President we're all Republicans.", the other from ronaldreagan.com."MARCH 30, 1981". [ronaldreagan.com]. Retrieved 12 October 2009. When one of the doctors said they were going to operate on me, I said, "I hope you're a Republican." He looked at me and said, "Today, Mr. President, we're all Republicans." 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)  Done 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)