Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 30

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.

March 30

How "freely given" are the sacraments?

"Seven in number, by tradition, they must be asked for and freely given."

So, anybody can come up to a Catholic priest and ask for a sacrament? And they are freely given? How freely given is "freely given"? So, an unbaptized person may ask a Catholic priest, "May I please receive a baptism?" and the Catholic priest would immediately baptize the person at that moment without checking on that person's sincerity on becoming a Catholic? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be looking for an argument. But assuming you aren't, freely means voluntarily, not unconditionally. The priest is not being coerced. See Baptism#Roman_Catholicism and Religious_conversion#Christianity as a start. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Haha. I guess I interpreted it as voluntarily. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about immediately, as the priest may a) have a few questions and b) may wish to make arrangements for a proper ceremony to be held. But in general, no, a priest will not deliberately withhold baptism from anyone who earnestly seeks it. He may ask you questions to learn how earnest you are, and you may be required to go through adult catechism, as adults that seek conversion to Catholicism typically go through a procedure that involves combining baptism, first communion, and confirmation, and there are classes to take which prepare you for it. It should be noted that if you have questions in this regard, you're free to call your local Catholic parish. Literally every priest in the world will answer them for you and will do so without making you feel bad or in other ways doing things that will make you uncomfortable. They would be glad to answer those questions, and do so without obligating you to anything. If you want to read more at Wikipedia Sacraments of the Catholic Church has more information. --Jayron32 00:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

An old Jewish man is crossing the street and is hit by a car. A Catholic priest witnesses the accident, and while not knowing the old man, he begins to administer the Last rites: "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost?" The old man looks skyward and cries, "I'm dying, and he's asking me riddles!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral Creation of Microstates

I was researching on Foreign Relations of Israel. The major supporters of Israel except the United States are the Island Nations like Marshall Islands, Nauru etc which does not matter in diplomacy but as they yield a position in the United Nation they play a major role in votes on Resolution. I am curious whether a big country such as United States or Russia, India can unilaterally make Microstate enclave within their territory so as to increase the number of follower state of it within its Sphere of Influence.

Prominent Examples coming in my mind include:

• United States can make Alaska a independent Puppet state
• India can give independence to Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Though none of these places have actually any secessionist movement but are there any international law about whether such creation of sovereign states are allowed. Prominent example of such unilateral declaration include in the independence of Singapore though Singapore is not a ally to Malyasia Solomon7968 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The USSR did it in the 1940s. Through their demands, Belarus and The Ukraine were given full member status in the United Nations, even though they themselves were constituent republics of the USSR (which had its own seat). It would be sorta like if the U.S. had gotten separate seats at the UN for California and Texas. See Member states of the United Nations. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If they tried to get UN membership for Georgia, then the US could ask for membership for Georgia, too. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The United States cannot make any of its constituent states a puppet state, as secession is illegal. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands could be granted independence... RNealK (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically it is not right that secession is illegal. But that the Constitution does not clearly mentions the topic of Secession in the United States Solomon7968 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Right" in the legal sense, or the moral sense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a major tangent from the OPs question. Shadowjams (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The nanny speaketh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the OP meant 'correct' so I agree with Shadowjams here. The OP may be mistaken, but there's no reason to go off on this tangent. Nil Einne (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Texas v. White, secession is illegal in the United States. RNealK (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You have to apply for UN membership. See Member states of the United Nations. And see Bantustan#International recognition for a South African apartheid policy that didn't work well. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition is relevant for the general question of international recognition. If you're worried about vote packing in the U.N., it's practically irrelevant for the permanent security council members; they'll just veto anything of significance. The microstate article doesn't really describe what I think you're asking about. I suppose larger non-security member countries could attempt to gain voting for states they prefer or control or influence, but that's hardly new. That the other members need to agree to their inclusion is a check. Shadowjams (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Christians in Pakistan ethnic groups

How many ethnic groups is the Christian community in Pakistan divided into?--Donmust90 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Christianity in Pakistan would be a good place to start your research on the subject. I would be shocked if any of the major ethnic groups in Pakistan had zero Christian adherents. --Jayron32 02:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the Christian community divided? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Mostly Sindhis and Punjabis, and most of their ancestors were converted Hindus. Converted muslims are rare although not non existent, and Pashtuns and Baluch are all 100% Muslim, and have extremely tribal cultures with honor codes.Rajmaan (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus And Foreign Investors Fleeing

... big foreign investors are expected to seek ways to flee from the country Why?Curb Chain (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if they're speaking literally or figuratively. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Until recently, Cyprus played the role of a trusted offshore tax haven. It's likely the article is talking about the financial assets of foreign investors "fleeing" Cyprus to other known tax havens such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, Dubai and Singapore, among others. According to the New York Times, in the aftermath of the Cyprus crisis these other tax haven countries have been quietly marketing their banks as "stable alternative[s]" for financial investors "fleeing" the bank crisis in Cyprus.

But are not investors businesses, not depositors?Curb Chain (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really get this north korea thing

I read somewhere that North Korea officially declared war on the united states. isn't NK also a nuclear power? why would america just kind of ignore this. I don't really get this. --86.101.32.82 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The North Korean state has a history of making bellicose and vitriolic threats to South Korea and other nations which it perceives to be its enemies; until an invasion is staged or a rocket is fired the overwhelmingly likelihood is that it's just rhetoric which shouldn't be taken seriously. North Korea, despite having one of the largest militaries in the world, isn't a nuclear armed power, despite it's attempts at nuclear proliferation. North Korean society places a huge emphasis on military drills, parades etc. However, many countries believe that the majority of North Koreas weapons are outdated. It's also almost universally accepted that North Korean weapons are incapable of being successfully fired at the mainland United States; however, some of their rockets may be able to reach the Hawaiian archipelago or Guam. I think that the general consensus is to worry about it when something actually happens, not just when the heavily government controlled North Korean media say it will. Hope this helped --Andrew 12:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Korean War ended in a stalemate and a cease fire agreement, but no formal peace treaty was ever signed. So technically, North Korea and the United States have remained "at war" with each other since the 1950s. The United States respects the cease fire agreement, and will not be the first to violate it. If North Korea violates the cease fire, the U.S. will respond. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"North Korea.. isn't a nuclear armed power." Well, it depends on how you define that. They have detonated weapons in the 10 kiloton range — that's enough to kill many tens of thousands of people if targeted in the right place, and we don't really know whether the devices they've detonated were done so at full power or whether their yield was correctly estimated (there are reasons why a state might detonate a nuclear device at partial yield — the Soviets did it all the time — and there are difficulties in estimating yield through seismic evidence alone). They probably have a nuclear capability for hitting South Korea or Japan or China. They don't yet have the rocket capability to accurately hit a target on the American homeland. So that's still pretty "nuclear armed" by most people's definitions, though they aren't really in a true second strike status with regards to the United States. But since Japan and South Korea are key US allies, there is potentially a form of extended deterrence at work. -Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding, and I could be totally wrong here, that the yield of every test so far has been small enough that it could have been fake. That is, conventional explosives were used to fake a nuclear explosion so that everyone would think that North Korea is a nuclear power. The third test in particular showed no radiation at all, last I read. I thought that was kind of suspicious. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As for why it is "ignored"... it's not ignored. There are heaps of analysts, politicians, planners, diplomats, and so on doing a lot of not ignoring it. If you're really asking, "why doesn't the US attack them?", it's because the consequences of such a thing would be unpleasant enough to be worth avoiding if possible. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The potential nuclear threat from NK is definitely not "ignored". On March 15 2013, United States Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, led a press briefing at the Pentagon announcing that The Department of Defense would be investing $1 billion into ballistic missile interceptors along the US Pacific Coast to counter North Korea’s potential weapon capabilities. General C. Robert Kehler, the commander of the United States Strategic Command, is quoted as saying: “Deterring North Korea from acting irrationally is our No. 1 priority.” No matter the nuclear capabilities of NK, the Pentagon is not ignoring their hostile posturing.

There's no reason to attack them, at least not yet. One issue is practical: How many wars can we afford to be involved in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The United States doesn't like to declare war. It never declared war on the Communist Koreans or China when they entered the Korean conflict in 1950. Instead, the United States acts on United Nations Secruity Council resolutions. It needs to be protected by the Secruity Council resolutions before engaging in military operations. The United States can't invade Syria because the Secruity Council resolution was vetoed by Russia and China.
Sleigh (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"The United States doesn't like to declare war." Well, they don't declare them anymore, but they certainly [participate in them], hype them, encourage them, etc., when the government sees it as being in its interests. Since World War II the US has basically been at war at least once a decade, often many times more than that; arguably it has rushed to war numerous times when its interests (we now know) would have been better served had it not (Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.). The US instigated the Security Council resolutions in question, and has acted unilaterally a large number of times. The simple fact is that attacking North Korea at the moment is not in US interests. North Korea knows that and is exploiting that fact for political gain. The real question on everyone's mind is, how far can they go before not attacking becomes more costly than attacking? If the North invaded the South tomorrow, you can bet the US would get involved no matter what the UNSC said. If they nuked Seoul tomorrow, you can bet there would be a heavy retaliation (though not necessarily a nuclear one). But in between what the North is doing now, and those particular outcomes, is a gulf of undetermined size. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If the North nuked South Korea, I think a nuclear retaliation by the U.S. is a realistic possibility. At the very least a complete invasion of North Korea would occur. I don't think they're suicidal though. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

An invasion wouldn't work, NK has too large of an army with too many weapons. Even manned airplane strikes would be risky. That leaves missile strikes, either conventional or nuclear, and UAVs. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the revisionists who think we didn't need to drop the big one on Japan to get them to surrender, can offer some advice on how we should deal with the North Korea situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, Bugs, what a nice bridge you've found to live under... --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, you're probably right, about Syria for example. The issue with North Korea is somewhat different, in that (1) we're already involved; and (2) there's a reasonable chance China and Russia could take action themselves, as North Korea has now become "bad for business", at least for China. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Breaking the nuclear taboo (that's a red link??) would have a heavy retaliation for sure. Threatening to do it, apparently doesn't ensue a concrete predictable response, although I am sure South Korea, Japan and the US would be happy is North Korea just crumbled or entered in a kind of North Korean spring. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Try the link without the word "the". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

No, still doesn't work. Where should it redirect to? Mutually assured destruction? Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A search indicates that the term "nuclear taboo" appears in several articles, but there's no article with that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It should probably have its own article; it's a common topic in international security discussions, whether it really exists or not, how it came about, what could lead to its dissolution, etc. It's not MAD. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• NK doesn't perceive SK or its Western allies as enemies. It perceives them as easy marks, especially as it was encouraged to do so by Jimmy Carter's "negotiations" for "humanitarian aid" during the Clinton "administration". Do we have an article playground bully? μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's simplifying things too much. I get the impression that North Korea believes a lot of its propaganda a lot more than the rest of the world gives it credit for. That said, the high ranking officials are logical and so in effect, it is saber rattling for certain ambitions. There are some very good strategic defense blogs that talk about North Korea from people that have spent time in diplomatic or military contexts and have reason to comment, if you're interested. I won't link any here, but a quick google search pops up some good ones. Shadowjams (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The fears of most of the DPRK wonks at the moment are that the North might go too far and provoke an actual response from South Korea, which would be very hard to back out off. It's saber rattling but saber rattling can be dangerous. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the US ignores NK enough. In particular, flying a pair of stealth fighters over SK was not wise. It just feeds right into NK paranoia. I wonder who approved that exercise. They apparently aren't very bright. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the White House is just itching for your well-thought out, well-researched policy paper on the subject... --Mr.98 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus

Does it not seem more plausible that Jesus wasn't actually killed on the cross, just severely wounded to the point of appearing dead. This seems to me to be infinitely more plausible than rising from the dead. Do any theologians support this view? --Andrew 11:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't think of any theologians who support the idea... I can think of a lot of "speculative historians" (or pseudo-historians, depending on ones POV) who advocate it. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you can form the concept of something, I'm sure somebody somewhere believes in it deeply, but it's sure not a mainstream thing. It's not a new idea. On the other hand, if you subscribe to the Christ myth theory that Jesus was part of the Dying-and-rising god continuum, then it would seem that the dying portion was of paramount importance, having been part of the story since long before it was attached to Jesus. Matt Deres (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You might like to check out Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus. IBE (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Or... not. That is an awful article. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I made it somewhat better. Could probably be trimmed a little. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Hence I downplayed it a bit, "you might like to" - I still think people should check these kinds of things out. Otherwise they appear to be seeking a debate, even when the question itself is perfectly reasonable. IBE (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Once you start getting into "what's likely", there are lots and lots of "more likely" scenarios than a guy getting killed and magically coming back alive three days later fit as a fiddle. The key thing about guessing likelihood or probability is that it is based on "normal" experience. The miraculous, by definition, is not meant to be parsed through such a way of thinking. Either you believe it or you don't. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - it is all about faith. For a different take on the same subject, see Islamic view of Jesus' death. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere I read (Therefore it's true!! Right?) that the Islamic belief is that Jesus did not in fact die on the cross, so the resurrection was illusory. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The answer I (as a Christian) would give is that neither of these things is likely, or plausible. Substituting a possible, but implausible thing for an impossible, miraculous thing does not actually tell us any more about Jesus the man, or about the story. The key thing is that the disciples clearly thought Jesus had returned to them in some sense - at least, according to early accounts. You can also consider (1) querying the reliability of the gospels, bearing in mind that Mark's Gospel, the earliest, seems originally not to have included any resurrection appearances, or (2) querying the necessity of a corporeal resurrection - the ability of the risen Christ to pass through locked doors, and appear and disappear at will, does not sound like an ordinary corporeal human. I don't think we can draw firm conclusions, but I prefer to think at least that the gospel-writers did not deliberately falsify their accounts; so something strange happened, but who knows what? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

One recent theory is that the Turin Shroud was used to somehow demonstrate the Resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Turin Shroud appears to originate in Turkey quite a while after the life of Jesus, I doubt it. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that question has been settled yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

One of my favourite titles for a Wikipedia article is "Swoon Hypothesis", which is about this very subject. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As per David Hume:"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision. Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.” --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a long winded way of saying Occam's razor. However, Christianity says that, despite the logical absurdity of a truly dead person coming back to life of their own volition (or even due to some external agent), it really did happen that way. That's the point of the faith. Nobody could ever prove it happened, but followers are enjoined to believe it happened. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus rising from the dead, and God talking directly to Muhammad... two seemingly improbably events, and the bases of two of the largest religious faiths in the history of humankind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Allah (God) did not talk directly to Muhammad... Islamic doctrine is that the Koran was dictated by the Angel Gabriel. The words were God's, but the voice was Gabriel's. Of course, to a non-believer that is probably just as seemingly improbable as God speaking for himself (or God engraving his words on stone tablets). Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Side note: Comedian Sam Kinison had a wonderfully irreverent routine about the reaction of the Apostles to the resurrection... "AAAHHHH... the dead walk!" (I am surprised that the idea of Zombie Jesus has not been more fully explored.) Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Where have you been? It's pretty much the most clichéd atheist mockery of Christianity, along with the phrase "sky daddy". 86.161.209.128 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the more amusing variants is the suggestion to publish the Bible as a pulp double feature, titled "War God of Ancient Israel" and "The Thing from the Crypt". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Largest Muslim population in numbers France Italy Netherlands by city

Which city in France has the largest Muslim population in numbers only, not percentage?; which city in Italy has the largest Muslim population in numbers only, not percentage? and which city in the Netherlands has the largest Muslim population in numbers only, not percentage? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Donmust90, why do you keep asking us for these individual bits of data, rather than following the frequent well-intentioned advice you receive on how to do the research yourself? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Islam in France, Islam in Italy, and Islam in the Netherlands seem to be good starters. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• We do seem to have a bizarrely large number of Reference Desk questions (148 of them) on this topic. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Islam in France, Islam in Italy and Islam in the Netherlands seem to be good starters but unfortunately they are not. The reason I want to know is because recently two years ago, Birmingham in England had the largest Muslim population in the nation with 234,411. Ever since then, I have declared Aston Villa F.C. as my favourite soccer/football team in the Premier League because of the Muslim population. In Ligue 1, my favourite is Marseille but I am not sure if it has the largest Muslim population in the nation. In Serie A, my favourite team is AC Milan but again same thing as Marseille case and in Netherlands, it is either Amsterdam or Rotterdam and once again, same case like Marseille and Milan. Besides that, I want to play these teams including Aston Villa on XBOX 360 FIFA 13 once I get it. When it comes to results, all I get is percentage of Muslim population in France, Italy and Netherlands.--Donmust90 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Donmust90, a percentage is as meaningful as a number. You could always calculate the approximate number of Muslims in a given location using the percentage of Muslims of that location and the total population of people in that location. I also wonder how soccer/football has to do with countries with the largest Muslim population. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Might just search google for "muslim men in tights". Make sure that's a safe search. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Medeis and 65.24.105 are not helping. How can I calculate the approximate number of Muslims in a given location using the percentage of Muslims of that location and the total population of people in Marseilles, Milan, and Amsterdam. My math power is not that great. Is there a website that shows how to do it? Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Donmust90, I'd really appreciate an answer to my question above. Why do you keep asking us for these individual bits of data? However, I can tell you how to calculate percentages: take the number of the subgroup (eg Muslims), divide it by the total population in question, and then multiply the result by 100. There is nothing magic about percentages: they are just ordinary fractions multiplied by 100. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I did answer your question AlexTiefling. It was about that I can claim team of Serie A, Ligue 1 and Eredivisie is my favourite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask 'Why do you need to know this?'. I asked 'Why don't you do the research yourself, instead of demanding the data piecemeal from us?' That question has absolutely nothing to do with football. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let me be more direct. The purpose of this page is (sometimes to identify objects and then) to point you to the relevant articles or reference materials for your investigation. It is not to do your homework for you, even if, as in your case, the question "which cities in various local regions have the highest muslim populations so I can root for their soccer teams" is self-assigned.
• You have, in good faith, by patient editors, been told repeatedly what sort of resources are available. We can't do the necessary reading or calculations for you, or update you every time one city pulls ahead of another in a certain demographic. Considering your editing habits, why am I reminded of this recent story in the news? μηδείς (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"No statement of use filed"

http://trademarks.justia.com/853/47/phineas-and-ferb-85347421.html

This page says that Disney applied for a trademark on "Phineas and Ferb", for category 29, which includes meat, jams, eggs, etc. They abandoned it. Does this mean that I could start a meat extract business, apply for the name "Phineas and Ferb", and possibly be legally allowed to call my meat extract the same name as a major media brand, so long as I didn't use their images? Completely theoretical, of course, I don't want to become a food processor, let alone one with the same name as a cartoon. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Answering this would be giving legal advise. Even if you used the word "theoretical" in your question. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A (somewhat) useful non-answer would be that it's quite likely that Disney's lawyers are among the very best in the US at trademark and copyright law. It's not called "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act" (in jest) for nothing. Regardless of whether your use is illegal or not, you would find yourself in for a very vigorous response from the company. Up to a point, the sheer will and money they can throw at you would likely be overwhelming. Matt Deres (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)