Talk:Jeffrey Hudson

message: These added details are interesting but where did they come from? I am skeptical because they were conspicuously not in Nick Page's book, which is our most inclusive overview of his life. Was this simply imaginary embellishment centuries later? Feel free to re-add or revert back along with a source for the extra detail. thnaks alteripse 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reason for temporary reversion

message: was he or not? Was it just a nickname? Johnbod 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of references to his knighthood.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  knighted 

message: "It is ironic that the smallest man in England was born in Rutland the smallest county in England." This word, 'ironic'. I do not think it means what you think it means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.50.26 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. Perhaps the, er most "fitting" word, would be "fitting": as in It is fitting that the smallest man in England was born in Rutland, the smallest county in England. So go ahead and fix it. alteripse 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  irony 

message: Jeffrey Kacirk gives the birthdate as 27 February 1619. Is the article wrong?
-- SECisek (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kacirk seems misinformed.  The only date that comes up when I googled "jeffrey hudson 1619" was 14 June.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: The article Jester states, "Charles later employed a jester called Jeffrey Hudson who was very popular and loyal. Jeffrey Hudson had the title of Royal Dwarf because he was short of stature. One of his jests was to be presented hidden in a giant pie from which he would leap out." However this article states nothing of Hudson being a jester or a fool. Mike R (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jester 

message: "which he attributed to the buggery he had regularly suffered at the hands of his captors."
This is given straight in the article, but for anyone as small as him, any buggery would have severely injured him with a high risk of consequent death from infection. Perhaps he meant this as a joke (and it seems like so to me) and as such this should be pointed out in the article.  Contrary evidence: in the remainder of the article he seems to have become quite a serious person, especially with regards to the duel and the army position, so would he have joked about this? It's either a lie (joke) or he possibly never said it. 
I don't have access to the source book, could someone check the source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTomato (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improbable claim 

message: Both the DNB and the ODNB call him Jeffery (not Jeffrey) Hudson.  I've changed the spelling throughout the article, but I thought I should raise the matter here before changing the article's title.  Any objections? --Antiquary (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title? 

message: It strikes me as odd that Hudson reportedly fought a pistol duel in 1644. Pistol dueling was not really a thing in the 17th century. In fact, Wikipedia's own article concerning the topic claims the first recorded pistol duel took place in 1711 - that's a full 67 years after Hudson's duel. Even in 1711 it was apparently unusual and did not become commonplace until the 1760s. So either Hudson fought the first pistol duel in recorded history, or something isn't adding up.
The name of the man that Hudson shot is not even recorded, making it essentially unprovable that anyone was actually killed (and thus that the encounter took place at all), and his use of a "water squirt gun" seems like another anachronism - water squirts did indeed exist in the 17th century, but they very large and were used for putting out fires; 'water pistols' for recreational use (which seems to be what the story is trying to evoke) did not exist until the late 19th century.
Is there a primary source for Hudson's duel? Is it even true, or just something invented by a later historian? Because it very much reads like somebody from a much later time period projecting a bunch of non-contemporary things onto the 17th century. I'd be very interested to know what the basis for this story is. 2A00:23C7:C892:5D01:686E:148D:761D:BAEB (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pistol duel? 

message: The term "water squirt gun" is factually incorrect, and calls to mind Hudson's opponent using a modern day squirt-gun toy resembling a fire-arm. Additionally, it isn't the term used in the article cited. The cited article specifically uses the term "water squirt". 
Squirt gun toys did not exist at the time, but devices called "water squirts" did, which were essentially large syringes used for putting out fires etc... (for details see the cited article and the footnote attached to the "water squirt gun" term explaining what the term "water squirt" means)
This entry uses a different term: "water squirt gun" than the very source it is citing (which specifically uses "water squirt"), additionally, the call-out explaining what a "water squirt" is, is nonsensical when attached to the label "water squirt gun" (there being no need to explain it in that case because it isn't a term for an anachronistic device that needs to be explained).
This entry should be changed to use the correct term "water squirt" instead of the incorrect and nonsensical "water squirt gun". 142.113.188.162 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water squirt gun?