Humanities desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 23[edit]

Historical Co-Development of Bread & Beer[edit]

I'm looking for sources on the co-development of bread and beer using yeast fermentation processes during almost any historical time period - the ancient world, medieval Europe, or early modern Europe. The "History of Beer" wiki article contains a statement about ancient beers saying: "These beers were often thick, more of a gruel than a beverage, and drinking straws were used by the Sumerians to avoid the bitter solids left over from fermentation". How similar would these ancient thick beer drinks be to fermented bread doughs? Any sources appreciated - books, articles, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockferret (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this get you started? --Jayron 32 00:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great little book called A History of the World in Six Glasses by Tom Standage that goes into some detail on this. A semi-companion work called An Edible History of Humanity might also have something on it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Then and Now[edit]

Although I was a child way back in the 1970s, I'd like to find out some things. Did Trans World Airlines and Pan Am World Airways fly to and from San Francisco International Airport and Orlando International Airport? Did United Airlines fly to and from the same destinations back then? 2604:2000:7113:9D00:94BE:7934:7013:2E5E (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have any from the 1970s, but I found scans of timetables for all three airlines from 1968 or 1969 under www.timetableimages.com. In each case there is a separate link for each pair of pages; you can't just page through the timetable. Apparently, in that period all three airlines served San Francisco, but not Orlando.

For TWA, here is the list of scans (from 1968); here is the system map; and here is the list of ticket offices; and here is one of the timetable pages showing San Francisco.
For Pan Am, here is the list of scans (from 1969); here is part of their list of locations; and here is one of the timetable pages showing San Francisco.
Similarly for United, here is the list of scans (from 1969); here is the system map; here is their list of ticket offices, here is one of the timetable pages showing San Francisco; and for good measure, here is an East Coast schedule confirming that Orlando was not served.

Note incidentally how all these timetables are styled like train timetables, rather than the style that became familiar not many years later, with many separate point-to-point schedules. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has immunity, how could (and why would) they plead the Fifth?[edit]

If a person has immunity, how could (and why would) they plead the Fifth? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plead the Fifth, for un-Americans. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an American, not a lawyer and no sources here, but if you have immunity from prosecution for crime A and by giving evidence you might implicate yourself in crime B, you might choose to plead the Fifth. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An American but not a lawyer and no sources here, but: (1) I would think that the immunity you're given would mean that nothing you say during your testimony could be used against you in any court proceeding, even one on another charge. (2) I don't think it necessarily gives you immunity from prosecution, but simply prevents them from using your testimony against you, either by following up on leads suggested by your testimony or by using your testimony while you're on trial. I think. in general they could still charge you based on other evidence. But many immuniy agreements may be broader and rule out any prosecution. (3) If you have immunity and still refuse to testify, you could be jailed for contempt of court. Loraof (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Plead the fifth#Grants of immunity. Loraof (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing this query is in reference to Bryan Pagliano's 'immunity deal' which is currently 'sealed' because "The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"^[1]

--107.15.152.93 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, according to your post, his immunity is limited. Perhaps that's the answer to the question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and even if his immunity was unlimited, it's still only to federal prosecution. He could still be exposed to civil liability for criminal acts that the feds don't prosecute. So he took the 5th. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Are you sure that's true? A person can plead the fifth (essentially saying, "I don't want to assist in any criminal prosecution against me"). But they can do so in a civil litigation, when they are being accused of some civil wrong or tort (but not a crime)? Are you sure? That doesn't seem right? If that's true, couldn't OJ simply say "I want to plead the fifth and not have to testify in my civil trial for the deaths of Nicole and Ron"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure to civil liability is not sufficient as a basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. There needs to be a genuine basis for concern over exposure to criminal liability. The Supreme Court also held a few years ago that fear of self-incrimination for a crime under foreign law is insufficient; there needs to be a basis for concern over incrimination under U.S. criminal law (either state or federal). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So, I am confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with 50.0.121.79 above? He stated, He could still be exposed to civil liability for criminal acts that the feds don't prosecute. So he took the 5th. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brad is saying I'm wrong, and he's certainly much more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. But I had read about civil liability regarding Pagliano someplace. It also surprises me that if a drug dealer or mafia member commits murders and gets criminal immunity in exchange for turning in higher-ups, he or she could then be made to confess the murders in a subsequent wrongful death suit. Brad, are you really saying that? 50.0.121.79 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, no? The government can offer immunity and "shield" the murderer from criminal liability (on behalf of the government). But, when you are dealing with a civil case, the plaintiff is just some average everyday individual private citizen (that is, not the government). So, let's say that I (as a private citizen) am the plaintiff bringing a wrongful death suit against your hypothetical mafia member. I will be damned if the government is going to stick its nose in my case. And give the murderer immunity in my lawsuit. And shield him from civil liability that he owes me. No way. Makes sense, right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if you can establish without the person's cooperation that they did the murder, you can use the info. That's much different from being able to sit someone in a chair, ask them whether they did the murder, and require them to say yes or no. That's self-incrimination even if they weren't prosecuted. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, in the civil case of wrongful death, you are not asking: "did you commit the crime of murder?". You are asking: "did you commit the civil tort of wrongful death?". Two different things. You can't "self-incriminate" yourself in a civil case, I don't believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the federal govt does have a scheme for shielding murderers and other bad sorts from civil liability and everything else: see United States Federal Witness Protection Program. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The federal government cannot shield anyone from civil liability owed to a third-party private citizen. That would make no sense. And just think of the corruption that would lead to. Dear God, as if governmental corruption weren't bad enough. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that link you gave (United States Federal Witness Protection Program) says absolutely nothing about the federal government shielding anyone from civil liability. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the WPP is they relocate the person under a new identity so you can't find him or her. That's a de facto shield. I suppose that wouldn't stop you from going after any assets you can find associated with the old identity, but in the Pagliano case we're talking about requiring the person to answer questions in a deposition, which would be difficult if nobody knew where he was. Anyway, I'm shocked if it's really true that you can take someone into a civil proceeding and force them to confess to a murder. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first point: It may be a de facto shield. But it's certainly not a program whereby the federal government seeks to shield people from civil liability. My second point: Nobody can force someone to confess to murder. Not sure why you are stuck on that point. I guess, in your words, they can be "forced" to "confess" to wrongful death in a civil case, yes. But, that's really not the issue. Remember that we are required to tell the truth when under oath in court. So, if you caused a death -- and you intend to fulfill your obligation to give truthful testimony when under oath -- then, yeah, you need to state that you caused that death. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were the US ships in the Revolutionary War part of the United States Navy?[edit]

John Paul Jones commanded the USS Bonhomme Richard in the American Revolution, and there were several other ships with "USS" at the beginning of their names. But the article on that ship says it was part of the "Continental Navy," and does not say it was part of the "United States Navy." If so, why wasn't it the "CNS Bonhomme Richard"? The article on the USS Constellation (1797), launched in 1797, says "She was distinguished as the first U.S. Navy vessel to put to sea and the first U.S. Navy vessel to engage and defeat an enemy vessel." United States Navy dates the establishment of the US Navy to 1775, then says it was disbanded after the war, then re-established in 1797. Why then would the USS ships in the Revolutionary War not have priority to Constellation in having "put to sea" and in defeating enemy vessels? Edison (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Continental Navy article says in the lead paragraph: "The Continental Navy is considered the first establishment of what is now the United States Navy". However, "by 1785 Congress had disbanded the Continental Navy and sold the remaining ships", so there is a clear break between the end of the Continental Navy and the foundation (or "restablishment") of the United States Navy by the Naval Act of 1794. So I think you can have it both ways. Similarly, there was also the Continental Army (disbanded in 1783), which was (or wasn't) the Regular Army (raised in 1792) which evolved into the United States Army. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Calling the ship John Paul Jones commanded the USS Bonhomme Richard may be a bit of an anachronism. It likely was known as simply the Bonhomme Richard at the time. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see United States Ship which says: 'From the early beginnings of the U.S. Navy there had been no standard method of referring to U.S. Navy ships until 1907 when President Theodore Roosevelt issued Executive Order 549 on 8 January stating that all US Navy ships were to be referred to as "The name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters"'. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted this comment on the article's title. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is or is not the case... But... Have you considered the possibility that the "USS" was a retroactive addition, officially granted by the Navy in more recent times. If this is the case, then it no longer matters that the designation is anachronistic... It is still accurate. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article just might be mistitled. I remember reading about the ship and it wasn't called USS and indeed the article, other than in the title, doesn't refer to it as USS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]