Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha

Mudd's Raktajino Business

By the 23rd century Harry Mudd had started a successful Raktajino business, growing the Klingon coffee in Columbia on Earth and distributing it throughout the Federation and to Starfleet. Notably, Raktajino was unknown to the Federation in the 2260's when Mudd had his original misadventures with the crew of the Enterprise, so presumably this business began some time after the Khitomer Accords. (DS9: "Trials and Tribble-ations")

Woah- I don't remember that in the episode? Is that canon, or fan-made? It might have been on like, the label of something or something, but that should be specified. That entire last paragraph I'm refering to of coarse. -AJHalliwell 05:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it here, because I don't recall the reference at all, certainly not in "Trials..." -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's as canonical as any okudagram, read the link to Raktajino which I put there, the labels of the bottles on DS9 made by the prop department read "100% Colombian" and "Imported by Harcourt Mudd", the reference to Trials and Tribble-ations was making clear that Raktajino was unknown to the Federation in the 2260's.--Wingsandsword 06:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'm convinced, and have added it back to the page. -AJHalliwell 06:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're easy to convince. Unfortunately that episode cannot be used as a reference just because no one heard of raktajino on DSK-7 at the time. The reference should be made to the source where the prop was shown -- such as the DVD or other reference guide. --Gvsualan 06:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Page 130 of The Art of Star Trek, they have pictures of all the various drink bottles from Quarks on that page, close enough to read the labels: "100% Columbian Raktajino" "Grown on the Green Hills of Earth" and "Imported by Harcourt Fenton Mudd". --Wingsandsword 06:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this is going to be on the page at all, it should probably be worded different. And it doesn't say anything about successful, or the fact that he grew it, just that he "imported it" (if it's decided to keep that in here).-AJHalliwell 07:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, since that was the standard Raktajino bottle in on the set of DS9, I'd say it was pretty successful if it was the most popular (or only) bottled non-replicated Raktajino on a Starfleet base several sectors away from where it was grown, and it seemed to be a pretty popular beverage on DS9 (and was mentioned a few times on Voyager as well). --Wingsandsword 07:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Clearly this is an instance of the art department having fun. Mudd was in - at minimum - his 40's in the 2260s. That would put him in his 140's at his youngest in the TNG era. Doubtful it would be the same man. It could have been a son ("Jr." being removed when the "Sr." dies in classic usage), someone with a similar name, or we could just see it as what it was: a joke. I think the latter, as minor art jokes (like hamster wheels and such) can and should be discarded for canon purposes. Aholland 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
If an image from The Art of Star Trek can be construed as canon, does this also mean that Memory Alpha accepts that prior to 2370 there were Federation citizens on Caldos II named "Vader" and "McFly"? Or that the Enterprise-D's bridge contains a ghost, seeing how the reflection of a microphone operator is visible on the bridge in "Remember Me"? After all, the DS9 bottles would be impossible to read even on an HD screen, yet this error was caught by people watching this episode on VCR's recording off broadcast signals. (Unification II apparently includes an even more noticeable case of a cameraman visible in a reflection in Sela's office). -
"Remember Me"? That leaves me wondering whether the apparition was in Crusher's mind or what ;-) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mudd's starship

Since it is barely visible, I don't think this picture adds anything to the article. I suggest we remove it. -- Connor Cabal 14:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


This trivia borders ... no wait, jumps the border!... of trivia. Is there a citation for it? How did we arrive by it. And do we need this piece of trivia? The preceding unsigned comment was added by DhaliaUnsung (talk • contribs).

I've removed it. We don't do "trivia". If it's a canon fact, then it should be added to the article and cited. --From Andoria with Love 21:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

TNG character revival

During the early years of Star Trek: The Next Generation, attempts were made to write an episode of that series which would have featured Harry Mudd, revived from cryogenic stasis. But sadly, Carmel died before the episode could be produced. Purportedly, that script was rewritten into "The Neutral Zone".

Removed, as it has lacked a citation for over a year now.--Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:53, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Into Darkness

So, do we need to create a "Harcourt Mudd (alternate reality)" page? The ship Kirk and co. use to fly down to Qo'noS is stated by Sulu as having been confiscated in the "Mudd Incident".

It's never stated that it was Harcourt. The comic series suggested that it was his daughter. -- sulfur (talk) 01:45, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Rename 1

He was never called Harcourt Mudd. He was sometimes called Harcourt Fenton Mudd and sometimes called Harry Mudd, so the page should be renamed to one of these. NetSpiker (talk) 09:15, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be true. I understand the waffling on which name should be the page and which the redirect. Even though he's called "Harry" more often than "Harcourt", popularity of a form of a name isn't necessarily the deciding factor. --LauraCC (talk) 17:22, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
Proper name is usually the nomenclature used. If this is to be moved at all, it would go to "Harcourt Fenton Mudd". Moving it to "Harry Mudd" would be like moving "James T. Kirk" over to "Jim Kirk". -- sulfur (talk) 17:48, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
I suggest it be moved to "Harcourt Fenton Mudd". --Defiant (talk) 17:54, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
So why isn't Kirk @ "James Tiberius Kirk"? Granted, he's referred to a lot less by that full name, but similarly, Harry Mudd is called Harry more often than Harcourt. --LauraCC (talk) 18:01, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
By that, you can deduce that MA's preferred method is (a) commonality of references, (b) full name, in that order of preference. Seems simple enough to me. Another example is D.C. Fontana. Even though her full first name is "Dorothy", "D.C." is used more in the Star Trek credits. --Defiant (talk) 18:38, July 27, 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Support the above HFM as page name. --LauraCC (talk) 18:40, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

I can't rename the page because there is a redirect for "Harcourt Fenton Mudd". Can someone remove the redirect? NetSpiker (talk) 00:51, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be absolutely accurate, laddybucks, we should refer to him as Mudd the First, sovereign ruler of Mudd I. 2001:569:7642:C200:A516:A436:62E:A32 15:35, September 13, 2018 (UTC)
This is a fairly technical discussion on which consensus was reached more then two years ago, and your post was not signed nor used the correct indent. Which is to say that while your comment is not necessarily wrong, you should probably read up on our policies before starting to lecture us poor old laddybucks. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:50, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

Removed nitpick

I've removed the following note:

In Mudd's mug shot, he appeared to be wearing the same clothing he wore when he was transported onto the Enterprise and, as frequently happened on Star Trek, the picture was reversed.

--Defiant (talk) 11:19, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Removed alt reference

In the alternate reality, in 2259, the USS Enterprise possessed a small K'normian trading ship that was confiscated in "the Mudd Incident" about a month before their assault on Qo'noS to capture John Harrison. (Star Trek Into Darkness)
The comic series Star Trek: Countdown to Darkness suggested that the ship was actually confiscated from Mudd's half-Bajoran daughter, shortly before the Enterprise began their mission to Nibiru.

We already have an article about the Mudd Incident, and if he was specifically identified, he should be under {{alt|Harcourt Fenton Mudd}}, which he wasn't and it shouldn't. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 01:15, January 18, 2017 (UTC)

I think the better option would be to discus this in the background section instead of outright cutting it. Into Darkness had a reference to Harry Mudd, and that's a relevant fact even if we can't confirm what that namedrop entailed exactly.
I'm going to be proactive and try that out. But if you dissagree, feel free to discuss or even remove it again. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:34, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not how we do this. I removed this item legitimately because it does not have anything to do with this individual, especially in the main section of the article, and extra especially because even the background information contradicts the assumption having said information there presents. I put it here for discussion, not for someone to put it back, with good explanation as to why. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 03:06, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's worth putting a note somewhere in there to reference the "Mudd Incident", even if it's only a "see also" type of thing in there. -- sulfur (talk) 04:03, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
I didn't just put stuff back. I actually agreed with the removal from the in-universe section, I just thought that some of the info was relevant to the background section. We have actual production sources on record as saying that the Mudd incident was intended to homage Harry Mudd. Sure, you can't go as far as say that Mudd was mentioned in the film, but it's still a homage and that in itself is relevant to the background section of his page. If we had for example Rick Berman on record saying that he took some traits of Harry Mudd and put them in Thadiun Okona, that would be relevant to the background section of this page too. It's a completely different thing from the question if Harry Mudd should be treated as having been mentioned in STID -- Capricorn (talk) 04:55, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
Also, I realize the proactively putting things back is a bit on the agressive side, but I started doing it in this specific type of situations because it seemed no one ever had anything to say about that except the occasional yeah that's ok. Sorry I ruffled your feathers, but be assured that I will readjust my cockiness downwards because of this. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:00, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
I support Sulfur's suggestion of a "See also" linking to the Incident. 31dot (talk) 09:34, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

Rename 2

The character is far better known as "Harry Mudd". Tom Paris' article isn't titled "Thomas Eugene Paris", after all --T smitts (talk) 01:37, March 8, 2017 (UTC).

He was referred to by the name "Harcourt Fenton Mudd" in exactly three of his three appearances, so it's not like it was just some one off (or in the case of Tom, seven-off) reference to a character's full name. Being as "Harry Mudd" was also spoken exactly three of his three appearances too, then your statement is not necessarily accurate. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:42, March 8, 2017 (UTC)