Talk:Budd Dwyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Missouri Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Pennsylvania Portal
Budd Dwyer is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Filter

In 1995, rock band Filter had a hit with the song "Hey Man, Nice Shot", which, although not explicitly mentioning Dwyer, was clearly about his suicide.

Well, not all that clear, since I seem to recall that at the time many (younger) hearers believed it was about Kurt Cobain. --Calieber 14:58, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree (I was in high school at about that time) but it is not pure speculation, either. I have a copy of a May 1996 newspaper which contains an official statement by Filter stating that the song was "inspired" by Budd Dwyer. Thunderbunny 23:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many PA stations? 1+5+1 = 7 != 6

Seven factorial does not equal six. But, seriously, I noticed this discrepancy myself and I'm not sure how to fix it.
Acegikmo1 06:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Looks like the discrepancy has been fixed by simply stating, "A number of television stations throughout Pennsylvania..." However, what might have accounted for the discrepancy in the first place is that at least one station in Youngstown, Ohio covered the news conference, thus would not count as a "Pennsylvania station". (I believe it was WKBN, but am not sure enough of this to edit the article.) The Youngstown station opted to edit the footage for broadcast. However, Cleveland station WEWS aired the footage from fellow ABC affiliate WPVI without editing, but with a warning. Meadville is in the Youngstown market, and Cleveland is close enough for the story to be of local interest there as well. -- SwissCelt 23:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is William Smith? He is referred to in the article but not further identified.

Bill Smith was the person who arrainged the crime and then blamed Budd. Smith and his wife were the only ones who provided first hand evidence aganst Dwyer. Smith was Republican Chairman and the unindicted co-conspirators were his key allies. I suspect that Smith was scamming the $300,000 for a run for the congressional seat that George Gekas ended up taking. If you want to know the truth you can ask Barry O'Connell or wait for the movie that was shot last year but has not been released yet. Lanny Budd 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] budd dwyer

i find this guy a real star he seems to me to have been fitted up by people around him and was unable to prove he wasnt guilty so maybe he committed fraud but he still had a sense of humour calling a press conference to shoot yourself an "update on the situation" is hilarious maybe i've got a sick sense of humour but who doesnt agree with me that this guy was one courageous man r.i.p BUDD

I have a sight probem with the sentence Thinking that someone in the crowd might attempt to thwart him, Dwyer put the gun barrel into his mouth and pulled the trigger, in front of five television news cameras. Since Mr. Dwyer committed suicide and there's no way to ask him what he was thinking before pulling the trigger the phrase Thinking that someone in the crowd might attempt to thwart him, should be struck as subjective. Wjbean 23:54, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

pmj. It seems that a powerful samurai ethic pervaded Dwyer's actions. In the West, we often think of suicide as an act of cowardice, running away from responsibility. But this man, wrongfully dishonoured and faced with an unbeatable enemy, decisively proved that he had guts -- if not as literally as his oriental counterparts. Certainly his act was more powerful (and dare I suggest, graceful?) than jail and trials and retrials and eventual death in obscurity. Budd Dwyer was, in my opinion, a brave and noble man; and I take some solace in the knowledge that the unusual video footage of his last seconds will keep him in the public consciousness for many years to come. pmj 14:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

@pmj: While I agree with your sentiments of samurai-like suicide (particularly, I admire his ability to state his issues with the justice system in an eloquent way), I'm confused -- in the article there doesn't seem to be any indication that he was 'wrongfully dishonoured' as you put it. Is there anywhere that says this (perhaps I've missed it)? I'm really out to lunch with people's fascination with Budd Dwyer - I'm curious if there's any citable sources out there to help me out. Thanks! Eddie Parker 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Why in the hell is it called the "ultimate act of cowardice"? I'm 99.9% sure Wikipedia doesn't call OTHER suicides this. Yeah, he was found guilty, but saying it's an act of cowardice is an opinion. Just say he shot himself in the head.24.250.68.193 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Chubbuck

If it could be done in a sensitive way, a see also to Christine Chubbuck might be added.

[edit] A sea of troubles

"In late 1986, Dwyer was charged as having agreed to accept a related kickback of $300,000. Dwyer never actually received any money and some suspect that this was an elaborate scam by Torquato's attorney, William Smith, to skim a supposed bribe." - is there a source of this quite bold assertion? An authoritative source that absolves Dwyer and damns the people who he held to blame? And does his conviction still stand? Reading the article I tend to favour Dwyer, but this is an encyclopaedia entry, not a fan page. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The link to a video of the shooting doesn't work.

The scandal goes back 3 years. I will have to read 50-100 articles to get a solid grasp of the investigation and trial--so I'm not going to bother. It will take too much effort to get this to encyclopedic standard. Lotsofissues 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so that's who the mysterious "Smith" is, who was to testify against Dwyer. When this was removed from the article, so too was the context indicating who Smith was. So later in the article, we have "A plea bargain made for Torquato and Smith required them to testify against Dwyer," without really identifying the second co-defendant. -- SwissCelt 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill Smith was the person who arrainged the crime and then blamed Budd. Smith and his wife were the only ones who provided first hand evidence aganst Dwyer. Smith was Republican Chairman and the unindicted co-conspirators were his key allies. I suspect that Smith was scamming the $300,000 for a run for the congressional seat that George Gekas ended up taking. If you want to know the truth you can ask Barry O'Connell or wait for the movie that was shot last year but has not been released yet. Lanny Budd 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locale of suicide?

I have seen differing accounts of exactly where the fatal press conference took place -- some even disputing whether it took place in Harrisburg. Was it in the state capitol building? Some other office building? Or was it in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh?

Unfortunately the published obits I have looked at are maddeningly unclear on this point.

Does someone have definitive information? Kestenbaum 00:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDb.com says Harrisburg. My memory says Harrisburg; I first learned of the suicide from KDKA's Harrisburg bureau reporter. But neither of these are definitive. Fortunately, I was able to find the archived article from the New York Times:
R. Budd Dwyer, the Pennsylvania State Treasurer, whose conviction for bribery last month jolted the state's Republican Party, shot and killed himself today at a news conference in his office in Harrisburg, the state capital.[1]
So, there's your definitive information. -- SwissCelt 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that settles the city and the conceptual location -- thank you. But where was the Pennsylvania state treasurer's office located in 1987? In the state capitol building? A specific State Treasury Building? Some other state office building? Kestenbaum 11:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I found this photo credit, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Paul Vathis made this photo of state Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer as he held a pistol in his hand before committing suicide during a news conference in his State Capitol office in Harrisburg, Pa. on Jan. 22, 1987. (Paul Vathis, Associated Press)"[2] Best I can come up with is that Dwyer killed himself somewhere in the Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex. The Finance Building would be a good guess, as this was built in 1939 and thus was probably the location of Dwyer's office in 1987. -- SwissCelt 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You concluded correctely. The actual suicide took place in Dwyer's first floor office in the Finance Building of the State Capitol complex. I was there. ------David Sollenberger

[edit] Speech Transcript

based on the video of the incident I've seen, Dwyer's speech ends with "so that my family and their future families are not tainted by this injustice that has been perpetrated on me." One explanation would be that the video I saw was edited, but it could be that the speech text in the article is taken from his prepared notes, and he never got around to reading the last paragraph. Can anyone clear this up? --Osbojos 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

--After watching this video repeatedly for the last... 2 hours or so, I think that the quotation of his final words is incorrect. A few seconds after he pulled the gun out of the envelope, people started reacting. We can all hear him saying, "No. No!" repeatedly. He was going to say something else, but the people in the room wouldn't give him a chance to speak. Anyway, because of the interruptions from the people in the room, I hear him say this, "This... This will hurt somebody," and not, "This thing will hurt somebody." I don't think that he said 'thing'. I think he was just stuttering because of being interrupted. You guys give it a listen and tell me if you notice this. -- anonymous.

I agree, there is no "thing". I've also watched the video many times and he definitely says: "When I... and I... please... please leave the room if this will... if this will offend you. No... no... don't (several times)... This... this will hurt someone..." and something that is hard to understand, shortly before the shot -- Valerius Myotis 01:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time of shot vs. time of death.

When exactly was the press conference? The article notes that the conference was held on January 22, but does not mention a specific time during the day. The article also says Dwyer died at 11:31 a.m. at Harrisburg Hospital, but does not note a date. I'm wondering if doctors kept Dwyer alive through the night, or if the conference was simply held very early in the day with Dwyer dying hours or minutes after being shot.

--I would almost assume that he died minutes after. He was probably transported to the hospital and called very shortly after. With the caliber of weapon and the blood loss, I can't imaging that he would have survived. If he was alive on arrival of EMS, he probably died on the way in.

--Besides artificial life support, there's really no way to keep someone alive after they've painted half their brains on the ceiling. When someone is shot in the brain, it is not the bullet that instantly kills them, its the shock wave it sends out. But rest assured, he was dead when he closed his eyes after hitting the floor.

Umm he died instantly, probably before he hit the ground, .357s and brains don't mix. Well, they do, but not with good results to the owner of the brain. Supra guy 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

--I don't think its even slightly plausible that he died in or on the way to a hospital. He died on the floor of the room where the press conference was held; possibly as he was falling down. Although there are stories of guillotine executionees moving their eyes and lips for ~20 seconds after being decapitated, their brains are generally not directly cut by the blade. The shot caused an enormous amount of brain damage AND only a modestly slower rate of blood loss than what a decapitation victim would have. The brain damage alone, in my non-medical guesstimate, would have caused him to lose consciousness almost instantaneously. There are no signs of consciousness AT ALL while he is on the ground, and it even seemed like he wasn't conscious as he was falling (though its hard to tell, because he kind of falls out of the frame for a moment while the cameraman re-centers on him.) I don't think that A-N-Y medical technology, even in 2008, could have even managed to get him into a "vegetative state." It seemed like at least two liters of blood was lost in just a few seconds. It was probably enough to cause massive shock and cardiac arrest- when the blood stopped cascading, I'd guess that that was about when his heart stopped beating. At least he didn't seem to have suffered for more than a split-second... R.I.P. Budd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Live?

The way this article is written with regards to the live coverage makes it sounds like there was absolutely no chance for the stations to cut him off. However it sounds like there was probably a not insignificant amount of time, perhaps at least 30 seconds between the time when he took the gun and the time he shot himself. While obviously the people broadcasting the press conference might not have been expecting the need to suddenly cut the feed and so perhaps were not ready/paying attention, I would assume they could have easily cut off the feed if they had wanted to and were on the gun so to speak. Obviously footage of him with the gun would still have been broadcast but it sounds like the actual suicide could have been cut off. Nil Einne 12:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with the way the article continues to imply that the cameras were sending a live feed back to the tv stations which was being broadcast live to the public. I can find no documentation of this. The cameras were on obviously, but this was not being shown live, in real time, to the public. I'd like someone to provide evidence that it was. Samclem 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kestenbaum, for the edit but I have more trouble with the immediate next part under "Aftermath." It says "A number of television stations throughout Pennsylvania carried the press conference live via feed from one of the five news cameras present, airing Dwyer's suicide before a mid-day audience without the chance of editing. Due to a major snowstorm throughout Pennsylvania that day, many home-bound school-aged children witnessed the suicide live on television." I still want to see the proof that one of those cameras was sending a live feed back to a tv station WHICH WAS SHOWING THE PRESS CONFERENCE IN REAL TIME, thus allowing all those snow-bound kids to see it. Can anyone name a tv station which was showing the live feed as it happened? Any documented evidence? Samclem 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't give you such evidence; in fact, to the best of my recollection, it wasn't live. I seem to remember that footage from the shooting was aired on newscasts at noon, 5, and 6 pm... not live. My recollection coincides with WPXI's By Williams' statement that he chose to air the shooting at noon. Were it live, the choice would be to cut away (if there were a choice, that is). -- SwissCelt 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So, am I allowed to go in and change the language in that section? Carefully, of course. I mean, unless someone has proof, then the wiki article gives out incorrect information. Samclem 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do go ahead and change that section. Kestenbaum 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It definitely was NOT broadcast live. Channel 27 in Harrisburg rushed the tape over to its station (about 10 blocks away) and aired it unedited as a special bulletin (Their broadcast of it interrupted the TV show Webster which lots of kids were watching since it was a snow day and there was no school.) There was no way at that time for anyone to have broadcast it live from the capitol building other than the public tv station, and since no one expected this to happen, there were no provisions to have it aired live. All that does it make it more of an intentional decision, having shown it to the public, since they couldn't use an excuse like, "It happened before we could stop the broadcast." The 3 stations that aired the gun firing choose to do that. I have tried to correct the blatant inaccuracy that KDKA-TV and KYW-TV (the stations I was reporting for) chose not to air any of the footage. That's ridiculous. I have the aircheck to disprove that. We choose to freeze the gun in Budd's mouth and let the audio continue. It's amazing how many inaccuracies have cropped up regarding this event. I remember it, however, like it was yesterday. What I"m still waiting for is someone to do research into how many TV station crew members decided to leave the business after that incident. It definitely impacted the lives and perspectives of those who were dragged into participating in Budd Dwyer's nightmare. -----David Sollenberger

[edit] How disgusting is it?

I just wanted to know how disgusting the scene is. I mean does he shoot his head clean off or what?

It's pretty horrific. No, his head does not come off. Rather, he falls to the ground, and blood spills out of his nose covering his mouth, neck, and clothes. The blood flow out of his nostrils is like two kitchen faucets letting out water, and it continues like that for at least 10 seconds. 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the JFK assisignation. Is it worst than that?--HamedogTalk|@ 10:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, though I think it's fair that people have access to a text description so they can decide whether or not to watch this disturbing piece of footage. Just to add to the above description, events move too fast on the film for one to see too much graphic detail of the actual gunshot (the photos are more graphic in this regard though as noted in the article they are all black and white). The disturbing part of the video is that Dwyer is clearly still alive as he crumples to the floor, and as the camera zooms in for a closeup of his face, you can see the moment of his death where the "lights go out" for all intents and purposes. That IMO is more disturbing than the rest of it. 23skidoo 18:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who want to see it: [3] (animated .gif) or [4] (full video.)

I watched the video in ~September of 2006, and I still remember it somewhat vividly. Side note: it must have been even more disturbing for those who were there in the room... If my memory is correct, he sort of falls out of frame for a split-second after the shot. Then the camera shows his face and body, and the blood cascading from his enormous wounds. I agree that the sheer quantity of blood streaming- cascading all over him... is very disturbing. Although I haven't seen the video in over a year, I seem to remember there not being any signs of consciousness at all after the gunshot. I don't know if by "lights go out" you meant consciousness, or if you meant "transition from a massively bleeding dying man, to a dead man who is still bleeding profusely." I could be wrong, but I don't think he was conscious at all when he was on the floor- not for more than a split-second, IMO.
Is it more disturbing than the Zapruder Film? Aside from the fact that it was Mr. Kennedy - on a purely human level, Mr. Dwyer's death looked much more disturbing. Part of this might have to do with the films, rather than the actual deaths. The Zapruder Film is from a modest distance away, and the film quality / camera quality wasn't even close to being state of the art for 1963. And the limousine speeds off. The Dwyer film, on the other hand, was shot by a news camera that was presumably made in 1980 to 1986. And it was shot from across the room. But regarding the actual videos- I assumed that it wouldn't be much gorier or disturbing than the Zapruder film, but upon watching it, I immediately realized how profoundly wrong that thought was. It feels like you're in the room when you watch it...  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was city editor of the Erie, Pa., Morning News at the time. The Times Publishing Company owned our paper and the Erie Daily Times, which was the afternoon paper. We shared the same office. The Daily Times ran the photo of Dwyer at the instant the gun went off in his mouth. It ran on Page 1, on top of the fold. No one could miss it. The photo can still be found with any search of the internet. That evening when I came to work, the telephone rang nonstop for three hours before we cut off the calls. Each caller was outraged that the photo had run at all, much less on Page 1. I apologized repeatedly. It took very little thought for us on the Morning News to decide to run the photo of Dwyer reaching into the envelope to get the gun rather than even showing it. Bill Welch Bill Welch 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider it pornography. I have watched it maybe 2 times in the last 20 years, and told some members of a college class that I was teaching that begged to see it that I wouldn't show it to them any more than I would want them to see a hard core porno film. Budd's doing that to himself, I think, was obscene. However, mores have changed in 20 years, and maybe I"m out of date, but I predict the image will stay in your brain for a long time and not be a good thing. ---- David Sollenberger former KDKA-TV/KYW-TV Harrisburg Bureau chief (1983-87)

I strongly agree. I watched it in 2006, and I was trembling in horror and sadness... It bothered me a LOT for several days, and its still unpleasant to think about. Its utterly horrifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This footage really is graphic and horrific. I watched it (stupidly) about a week ago and it still torments me. This video is NOT for the faint of heart and should not be casually clicked on. That warning really needs to stay. Nostaljack 17.29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wuss. It's no worse than that historical vietnam war footage of the policeman shooting some guy in the head, infact, I've seen worse on television. Comradeash 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What you think of me couldn't possibly matter any less. We've already discussed the warning. Leave it there. Nostaljack 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video warning

This is in response to user:fightingforinjustice's edit summary comment for edit 16:04, June 15, 2007. He states "rv; well it doesn't. It is simply done as an emphasis, and there is no wikipedia policy to state it is forbidden to capitalize a warning)" Bolded all caps looks unprofessional. Remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just some random web page. Other than maybe for a heading, have you ever seen bolded all caps in an encyclopedia? Just because there isn't an explicit wikipedia policy against something doesn't mean it's acceptable. Further, even if you disagree that "WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT" looks unprofessional, please note that I left the warning there, albeit not in all caps. The warning is no less legible simply because it isn't in all caps, and in all caps, a reader gets the distinct impression that wikipedia is screaming at them. Personally, I don't even thing a warning is necessary. Shouldn't it go without saying that a suicide video is graphic? Thus I think my edit is a fair compromise and I suggest users think very carefully and justify themselves on the talk page before changing it back. --Osbojos 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Although I don't see an issue with including a warning, I don't believe it should be all-caps or bolded. To format it as such is completely unencyclopedic. PaladinWhite 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It is in capital letters for emphasis and people don't have to feel like they're being yelled at because it is in parenthesis. If it was a message board then, yes, I would say all capitals is like yelling. But this is not the case. Fighting for Justice 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The link you refer to in your most recent edit WP:NOTPAPER#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia refers only to article size and number of topics. Read it again if you don't believe me.
All Capital letters, outside of a title or heading is considered yelling in nearly all contexts, not just message boards. Find another example of bolded all caps used for emphasis in a wikipedia article.
The idea of discussing this issue on the talk page was to reach a consensus before making any further edits. Your argument directly above doesn't resolve the issue. Clearly, at least one other user PaladinWhite believes that bolded all caps is excessive.
Finally, in your edit summary you argue that it should remain bolded all caps because "It's been like that for months." That doesn't mean its proper, it just means no one has bothered to correct it. One could use that same reasoning to argue that an article should remain a stub, or retain a factual error or POV tone - after all "It's been like that for months." --Osbojos 04:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Pearl The words "Explicit Content" is capitalized. THe best compromise I can think of is this: The word "WARNING" in capitals and the rest of the statement as "Extremely Graphic Footage". Keep it all bold. Fighting for Justice 04:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "Fighting". The footage is completely disturbing and, what's worse, it goes fast. Even if you want to "chicken out" after you've clicked on it, you can't. By putting it in "bold" print, my hope is that those who might be "riding the fence' concerning this footage might think better of viewing it. I wish I had. user: Nostaljack
Ok, I can deal with this compromise. --Osbojos 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am so confused right now: why the hell is a video of a man commiting suicide allowed on here anyway?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.219.166 (talk • contribs) 14:34, October 17, 2007

Because Wikipedia is not censored. Mushroom (Talk) 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honest Man: The Life of R.Budd Dwyer

To the person who deleted the reference to the documentary:

I would appreciate if you kept this entry posted. I’ve spent over 4 years making the film. Over the course of shooting the 15 interviews with friends, family and CTA employees alike, I feel that this project is very relevant to the "Budd Dwyer Story". Aside from the vast amount of information I’ve accumulated I have also acquired hundreds of photos, and documents. I have every intention to post these items on the wiki page as long as my entry can stay. It’s only fair (and it’s extremely annoying to have to repost the same entry over and over). Thanks for your cooperation.

What's being "fair" got to do with it? Wikipedia wasn't created as an advertisement site. If you want to have your video listed then add something new to the article from your movie, something nobody knew and then reference this new fact with the video. Then everyone is happy. -- AperfectHell 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Until you finally release the film, I don't think it's notable either. Anybody could've compiled that teaser trailer, film or no film. Until you finally release it, since this was supposed to be done in the Fall of 2007, and/or it appears on IMDb, it should be taken out of the article. Thank you and I look forward to the film, if it's ever released. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am SURE Dwyer is a guilty thief, and I hate pigs like him (and the Alaska republicans) who are destroying my country by treating it as their own personal feeding trough. NEVERTHELESS, Integrity (who often irritates me in this way) demands that I strongly advocate the inclusion of this film in the Dwyer article. Why? BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT. It contains material which would clearly be critical for anyone researching Dwyer, and is likely to be the ONLY source for much information. That is ALL that is important. The fact that I hope nobody watches the film is IRRELEVANT. And the fact that it would help someone else (the film maker) as an unintended side effect is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not all unintended consequences are bad. TechnoFaye Kane 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a broader context.

As someone who came to this page looking for *information* surrounding the events that led up to the act that Budd Dwyer is most well known for, I was kind of disappointed to find a cultish obsession with the video footage itself. Since there *is* obviously such a popular obsession, would it make sense to have a separate page for the cult object itself, so that the biography page can actually be better focused on the actual events prior to his death?

I mean, come on - a "see also" link to Christine Chubbuck? And none to anything actually related? I propose that the video is acknowledged as an iconic cult object in it's own right and given it's own page for relating it to other similar stuff, for those who are looking for that, and that the bio page be made more informative about the scandal, related to other similar political scandals, etc. Anyone agree?

I disagree. For better or worse, Dwyer is inextricably tied to his suicide video, and his suicide is itself inextricably linked to his political scandal. This is what he's best known for and largely what makes him notable. How many other former state Treasurers have their own wikipedia articles? I appreciate your sentiment, but to me, your proposal seems like the equivalent of having the Bruce Springsteen page link to a separate page about "the music of Springsteen." I agree the page could use more details about Dwyer himself as well as the political scandal, but the solution is to add that content, not to dismiss interest in his suicide as "cultish obsession" and move it to a sub-page. If the amount of suicide video information or other biographical information was sufficient to make the article unreasonably large, then there should be a discussion of splitting some of the video content off to a separate page, but it should certainly still be described in the main article. In the meantime, I don't believe this article is lengthy enough, or contains content unrelated enough to justify splitting into separate articles. --Osbojos (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)