Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 June 8

= June 8 =

Osco-Umbrian languages Inscriptions
How many are Inscriptions in Osco-Umbrian languages?--212.171.69.33 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How many what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The article Etruscan civilization may contain some references. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Baseball Bugs How many Inscriptions in Osco-Umbrian languages are?--212.171.69.33 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about "Osco-Umbrian" in the article. Meanwhile, are you trying to ask, of all possible language inscriptions anywhere in the world, how many are in this "Osco-Umbrian" language? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty obvious (to me at least) that they want to know how many inscriptions in Osco-Umbrian are known. As the article (Osco-Umbrian languages) says, these inscriptions form the basis of our knowledge of these language, and it is therefore interesting to know how large that corpus is. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer - what a surprise - is found in Oscan language (~800 inscriptions) and Umbrian language (~30 inscriptions). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For Oscan proper Oscan_language there are three important texts: Tabula Bantina, the Oscan Tablet or Tabula Osca, and the Cippus Abellanus. All known texts togehter are about 800. The archeological Museum in Naples has a collection of inscriptions from Pompeii, where Oscan was still spoken in the first century. Under Osco-Umbrian_languages are listed the languages of the group with links to the single articles where you will find some mention of the number of known inscriptions to the language 2003:F5:6F10:0:B933:9D3:80E:608C (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

History: Reliable secondary sources

 * Are the any high quality secondary sources for history of Psychiatry and / or Psychology? Most seem to be book chapters and have considerable bias or ignore major things and focus on trivia
 * Are very large in print encyclopedias considered good sources - and if so where do I find them?
 * I am particularly looking for content covering 1950 onwards, but 1900-1950 would be helpful. I already checked the DSM and ICD but they just listed diagnoses back then.

Even neutral secondary sources are difficult to find for some topics. PTSD, soldier's heart, railway spine, hysteria, conversation disorders, multiple personality, dissociative disorders, schizophrenia / dementia precox especially. (I'm not looking for Freud or psychology) Amousey (they/then pronouns) (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC) (edited - secondary not tiertary preferred) Amousey (they/then pronouns) (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Discovering the History of Psychiatry has a lengthy preview on Google Books.
 * Also History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology.
 * Perhaps of interest: Hearing Voices: The History of Psychiatry in Ireland. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Amousey (they/then pronouns) (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We have an article with a lot of works cited: History of psychiatry. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Amousey (they/then pronouns) (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you, I've checked that one. I did find a book with history - Dissociative Disorders: DSMV and Beyond.

Henry VIII's letter about Catherine Howard's adultery
What did Henry VIII's letter about accusing his fifth wife Catherine Howard of having sexual relations with Henry Mannox and Francis Dereham while she was living with the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk before she married the king say? And who wrote the letter and why did he or she tell his Majesty about it? 86.129.17.19 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not really clear what letter you are referring to. Who wrote a letter when to whom? (If any historians are reading this; some of the references in the article are in urgent need of being made more precise, what with all the bare references to (mostly further unidentified) "Acts of the Privy Council", "BL Add MSS", "BL Royal MSS, State Papers", "Calendar of State Papers, Spanish", "Correspondance", "Correspondance Politique", "Hall, Triumphant", "Ives, Fall Reconsidered", "Letters and Papers", and "Spanish Papers".) --Lambiam 09:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In Catherine Howard, the odd citations were first inserted by User:Jgrantduff back in 2015. Unfortunately Jgrantduff has been indeffed since 2017, so there's not going to be a chance to ask him to improve the article. Sometimes those sorts of citations make me worried about plagiarism, because they're more often found in older scholarship than things that've been published in the last twenty-odd years, and few people who write Wikipedia articles are scholars who reflexively use those sorts of citations out of habit. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From here maybe? I can't find any duplicate content, but those refs seem to be just cut-and-paste from the page (or vice-versa, nothing on wayback). fiveby(zero) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC) pretty sure that reflist is copied from WP. fiveby(zero) 16:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Some quick Googling leads me to believe the OP is talking about a letter written by Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer had evidently come into information about Howard's alleged past via John Lascelles, and had asked the counsel of Thomas Audley and Edward Seymour, who advised him to report the matter to the King in writing. From the article on Cranmer, I get the impression that it wasn't so much a letter as a note, and so it's entirely possible that its contents weren't preserved. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here be ye transcript: Letter of Archbishop Cranmer to King Henry VIII, Regarding Queen Catherine Howard (November 1541). Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that is Cranmer's later report about his interrogation of Catherine at Southwark. Back to square one. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An account of Cranmer's revelation, but not the actual text, is at Catherine Howard (p. 164) by Lacey Baldwin Smith:
 * "In the end, Audley and Hertford persuaded the pliable Archbishop to accept the unpleasant task, but not even Cranmer had the courage 'to express the same to the King's Majesty by word of mouth'. Instead, he wrote a letter narrating the entire story of how Lassells's married sister, Mary Hall, who had once been a chamberer in the Dowager Duchess's household, had revealed to her brother the details of what presumably had transpired in the girls' dormitory at Lambeth".
 * Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The book they cite at the end, The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, contains a pretty extensive collection of other letters by Cranmer. Skimming the letters for 1540-41, I find no other letter from the time period than the above-linked report about the interrogation. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing relevant in The works of Thomas Cranmer or Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 16, 1540-1541  either. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Our article on Catherine Howard states: "It is unlikely that King Henry was unaware of the allegations against his wife when on All Saints' Day, 1 November 1541, he arranged to be found praying in the Chapel Royal, where he received a warrant of the queen's arrest that described her crimes." If this is correct, no letter by Cranmer reached the King. However, Weir, to whom the sentence is partially sourced, paints a different story: "On that day, however, as Henry arrived in the royal pew in the chapel royal to render thanks, he found a sealed letter awaiting him". That letter is attributed to Cranmer, and there is no hint it is a warrant. But, whether a warrant or not, there seems to be consensus that Cranmer was behind this and that the document laid out Howards's alleged promiscuous past. --Lambiam 20:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The (to me, awkward) phrase "It is unlikely that King Henry was unaware" was introduced in 2019, and did not alter the references. I think the likelihood opinion in that sentence is purely the product of the editor who introduced it and should probably be removed. The word "warrant" was introduced in 2015 without a direct reference for the nature of whatever the King read on that day (though the end of the paragraph cites the same Letters and Papers, Acts of the Privy Council Meetings, and a couple pages of Weir that don't match the version in Google Books). I think the term "warrant" might be incorrect based on what the other sources say. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you like to put it right or do you want me to have a bash? Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up what I describe in my post above. Please feel free to improve the article more, as there are certainly places where it needs improvement. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

In the 4th episode of the final season of The Tudors, the letter about Catherine's sexual relationship with Dereham was delivered to the king. And in the next episode when the king asked Edward Seymour what the letter says, he did not read it in full and was not read in voice-over either. He just said "The letter accuses Queen Catherine of dissolute living before her marriage to your majesty." 86.129.17.70 (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)