Talk:Samuel Mudd

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Maryland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Society Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force. Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

8-7-09: Deleted reference to Dr. Mudd whipping a slave. The matter is in dispute. While it is true that the prosecution presented a former slave, Mary Simms, who claimed that Dr. Mudd whipped her, it is also true that several other former slaves testified that Mary Simms could not be believed. Julia Ann Bloyce, another house servant present at the time, testified that Mary Simms was a liar and that Dr. Mudd did not whip her. (Source: National Archives microfilm M599. Julia Ann Bloyce testimony of May 25, 1865.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsummers (talk • contribs) 17:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

01-21-07: corrected the previous entry which said detectives found Booth's boot while searching Dr. Mudd's house, and that Dr. Mudd had hidden the boot in an obscure place in between his attic walls. Lieutenant Lovett's men did not find the boot during a search of Dr. Mudd's house, and no one ever claimed that Dr. Mudd had hidden the boot in the walls of his attic. See Lieutenant Lovett's conspiracy trial testimony, now added to this article. 71.241.255.59 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Robert Summers.[reply]

the mudd club in new york city was named for him. --216.165.11.242 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "The origin of the expression "his name is mud" is related to Samuel Mudd because after the incident with John Wilkes Booth his reputation became tarnished." It seems that this saying predates the assassination by several decades.

can you (or anyone else) provide a citation for the earlier use of the phrase? In any case, since this connection is widely documented and believed it should be in the wikipedia, even if it is only to correct this misunderstanding. Wrs1864 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Etymology Dictionary entry for mud [1] has the first recorded instance of 'your name is mud', to mean that one is discredited, from 1823, well before Samuel Mudd was even born. Apparently it's from 'mud' in the obsolete sense of "a stupid twaddling fellow". I'm going to edit to reflect this. (and I've just realised the link already there concurs).Number36 04:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. I'm almost certain that the first reference didn't mention the 1823 usage when I added it, but maybe I missed it. It's good to get this nailed down anyway. Wrs1864 04:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary is the authorative source that the Online Etymology Dictionary appears to have quoted without attribution. Lifted in its entirety. AWRichards1 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8-7-2006: corrected some minor inaccuracies. Dr. Mudd didn't buy his farm. It was given to him by his father. He took legal title to it only after his father's estate was probated in 1877. The only hard record that exists for the number of slaves held by Dr. Mudd is the U.S. 1860 Slave Census, which lists 5 slaves for Dr. Mudd.

Also deleted the reference to Dr. Mudd during the trial repeatedly denying recognizing Booth. Dr. Mudd did not testify at the trial, nor did any of the other defendants. He did deny recognizing Booth, but that was well before the the trial, at his farmhouse, when he told detectives that he didn't recognize Booth. He did not claim Booth wore "false whiskers and spectacles". It was Mrs. Mudd who made the false whiskers claim, and there was never any mention of spectacles.

This article is heavily biased with no citations whatsoever. I don't see a single bit of evidence inside this article that proves he had any connection with John Wilkes Booth, nor do I see a single citation for any of the allegations against Booth himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.145.140 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Antiques Roadshow in Baltimore (2007) with a cane that Mudd had made. It was appraised at $5,000-$10,000. (Not article worthy but sort of interesting.) [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.29.130 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section does not contain a citation until the last paragraph. It is also, arguably, the most important section in the article. Until the paragraph regarding his trial there are numerous statements which I think need citations such as "Most historians agree", "Some historians" and "others believe". JHobbs103 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating a missing subject in the second clause of the Fort Jefferson soldiers' petition, I came across a secondary reference to it via Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=bWSZa3sFo-8C&pg=PA70&dq=surviving+Fort+Jefferson+soldiers+signed+a+petition

If the "original" is available online in via the National Archives, I could not locate it. The citation given by Robert Summers (above) is "U.S. National Archives, College Park, Md., RG 204, Samuel A. Mudd Pardon File B-596." RG (record group) 204 refers to the Records of the Office of the Pardon Attorney. I did not disturb the Wikipedia citation, being unfamiliar with your style guidelines. I'm adding these details here in case they matter to anyone. Michael (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I noticed your improvement of the quote there. Unfortunately that book you link to up there is self-published (lulu.com), so not useable here. We tend to take editors' words on what sources say when they're not available online, unless there's something really strange about what they're being used to support. You can read up on what's acceptable at

WP:RS if you're interested in learning more.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops. Please excuse my naïveté regarding what one finds on Google Books; it never occurred to me to check the publisher. Thanks for the catch, and for pointing me toward further guidance. Best, Michael (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, the work cited in (misplaced?) note 14, Serup on Chiniquy, seems to be a self-published validation of the ravings of a notorious crank: "Paul Serup (2008). Who Killed Abraham Lincoln?: An investigation of North America's most famous ex-priest's assertion that the Roman Catholic Church was behind the assassination of America's greatest President. Salmova Press." http://www.salmovapress.com/ Michael (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, good catch. That's clearly self-published. If you find stuff like that, you have a few choices. If the material seems loony and it's cited to a loony source, you can remove both. If the material seems plausible but it's cited to a loony source, you can try to find nonloony sources and replace the loony sources with them and if you can't find reliable sources you can either remove the source and leave the plausible material, or do that and also tag it with a citation needed template. If you're not sure whether the source is loony or not, you can add templates like {{

rs}}, which give ^{[unreliable source?]}.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Great, thanks for the tips and for going ahead with the cleanup! Michael (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I thought pardoning included an expunging of a conviction but the article says that the descendants have requested that Presidents expunge the conviction, I must ask whether Mudd was pardoned or commuted?76.246.60.111 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at all the article, so what's the point of this fuzzy picture of an alleged article from 1979? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.43.213 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up, the cliché used to dissuade someone from an action was "You wouldn't want your name to be 'Mudd'? Of course, we knew this to be a reference to the last name of John Wilkes Booth doctor, who had probably taken an oath to treat his patient. At any rate, the first time I clicked on this link, I saw the list of his descendants and almost had a heart attack. I was in shock. I thought, "How could they list his children? What are they doing? Don't they know the cliché?" Here in NYC, I made the comment at a hospital. However, the person I was talking to did not seem to know who Dr. Mudd was. So, I tried to quickly give him a brief history lesson. There was a recent program on Fox Network with a brief mention of Dr. Mudd. I grew up hearing an assortment of clichés, many of which many might not take to kindly to and the implications I did not always understand. However, within those cliché were often American historical references.

I have discovered something hilarious after writing this. It seems the maiden name of Dr. Mudd's mother has been appeared in the genealogical research recently, but I never made the connection. I guess the joke is on me now. I can't wait to share this with the horse's mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E944:B500:FD04:93A2:68C0:13AD (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit by 143.195.109.123 of 27 September 2017. Mudd was charged with conspiracy to murder, whether or not historians are agreed that he was guilty. The lede summarises what is in the article. Valetude (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samuel Mudd. 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/20090608164358/http://www.samuelmudd.com/ to http://samuelmudd.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would he hide a piece of evidence like that in a secret compartment in his attic instead of destroying or discarding of it? AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of this article was entered by user Robertsummers. Substantial portions of it come from one or more self-published books written by one Robert K. Summers, who describes himself as Samuel Mudd's great-grandson. Nothing was footnoted or quoted. What at first seemed to be plagiarism seems more to be original research. His books include "Dr. Samuel A. Mudd at Fort Jefferson" (verbatim quoted in Later Life section), "The Fall and Redemption of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd," and "The Slaves of Dr. Samuel A. Mudd," available to view in Google Books. I've put one footnote in. Someone with more energy than me may want to rewrite or chase down other sources. ElrondPA (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pardon overturns the conviction as well as the sentence, so this article is confusing and probably just wrong. Perhaps you mean that the sentence was commuted. Richard75 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was he really known for "Being John Wilkes Booth's doctor", as is stated in the info box? Wouldn't "Giving medical treatment to John Wilkes Booth" be more accurate and less misleading? Yitz711 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]