Humanities desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

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.

November 22

Products "shipped" vs "sold"

Many headlines of technology blogs feature stories when manufactures claim to have "shipped" a high volume of products. The common counter argument is that while these are sold to retailers, it should not count as "sold" until a consumer has purchased them from the retailer. So a company can manufacture 1,000,000 new gadgets and ship them to stores, they linger in warehouse shelves if consumer demand is low. So can someone explain the process of how retailers obtain products? Do they pay for the products upfront? Who is responsible for unsold products? Is the retailer responsible for the unsold products? Can they return them to the manufacturer for a refund? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it varies according to country/economic system, but since your IP address indicates you are in the US, I assume that is the market to which you are referring. As for the process of how retailers obtain products this google search would be a good start. And yes, most stores pay for their product up front. Unsold products most often end up in a "clearance bin"/"clearance rack" or are packed on a pallet and sold en masse to Outlet Stores or Discount Stores (e.g. Big Lots, etc.). FWIW, the same thing happens in the publishing world. Books on most "Best Seller" lists are there because Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc. pre-ordered a huge amount, not because some certain amount of individual units have been sold to the end consumer.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 03:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends not only on the country, but also on the product. In many markets, mass print publications (newspapers, magazines, mass-market paperbacks) are reported "unsold, destroyed", and the retailer is reimbursed for them. For these products, the cost of handling and sending back unsold merchandise is usually higher than the residual value - what's the value of yesterdays Daily Mail? "Destroying" ranges from throwing away (for daily newspapers) to ripping off and sending back the title page to the publisher, to simply putting a black stripe on it and throwing it into the $1 bin. For perishable standard items like food, the retailers bear the risk - but then they should best be able to estimate how many cans of tomato soup move in a week. I don't know what the standard is for expensive high-tech gear like iPads or Surfaces, but I can very well imagine that the producers are willing to push things into the market on a commission basis (i.e. the producer bears most of the risk, the retailer "only" provides some of its real or virtual space). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if the King dies before the heir apparent is born?

Under the rules of the British monarchy, what happens if a king dies while his wife is pregnant with their first child? Since the child isn't born yet, presumably it doesn't become monarch instantly, but instead the crown passes to whoever's next in line (e.g. a younger brother of the king). But then once the baby's born, where does it go in the line of succession? Ahead of the new king's own children? Is it booted out of the line of succession for ever? Or what if a queen regnant dies while pregnant with her first child and the doctors are able to save the baby? There would probably a few minutes at least between the death of the queen and the birth of the child; is that enough for the crown to pass to someone else? Is there even a law already in effect for such a circumstance? Or would parliament have to convene and quickly decide what to do? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has never happened in England, although it has happened in other countries, as well as for noble titles in England. You can read about a number of cases at Posthumous birth#In monarchies. Note that although several English Kings are listed there, in all cases the posthumously born King only took that title long after birth (i.e. his father was not the King). There are Spanish and French kings who took the throne after a posthumous birth, and in these cases no other heir was seated during the intervening period. At least one English Duke was born after his father's death, Charles Edward - as with the kings, no other duke was declared until his birth. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a genealogy question. The point is that the next in line to the throne would be the one with the most direct line to the monarch. That is NEVER an easy question to answer, but, if the King was on the throne when his wife became pregnant, his son (lets face it...it's almost always about the son...until recently) would probably have to prove his line all over again to the satisfaction of those in charge of such decisions. This is common in royal circles. But this is still a very interesting question and one I would wonder if there is a legitimate answer for. Seems that it really depends on the period in question. Today, I believe, the answer is simply, yes, they still take the throne...in Great Britain. But heraldry and royal lines do have a slightly different take depending on the country of origin.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Angr has produced the most likely scenario; that the first person in the existing line of succession would accede immediately, and the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would have to decide jointly if the unborn infant should go to number one on the new list. If it happens, it's not going to be for a long time. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on posthumous birth#In monarchies touches on this point, though without references. This question came up a while ago on this same desk; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 8#Posthumous births in the Commonwealth Realms succession. The proclamation of Queen Victoria's accession included the proviso "...Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort..." (see Regency Act 1830) which indicates that the lawyers and lawmakers of the day were well aware of the potential problem. You may be able to locate more specific resources through Royal Succession Bills and Acts, but I make no promises. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 19th century, it was decided that Victoria would become queen upon William IV's death but that her reign would end should a posthumous child be born to William IV's widow Adelaide. In such scenario, Victoria's reign would have ended as if she had died, and her newborn cousin would have ascended with Adelaide as regent. Since the British throne is never vacant (a new reign begins the moment the previous one ends), such a solution makes sense. For example, had Elizabeth II, Charles and William all died before Catherine gave birth to George, it is safe to assume that Henry would have reigned as monarch until the birth of his nephew. Anyway, this exact same question has been asked many, many times - try searching the archives for previous responses. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give a greater world view of the question, the "first emperor of all (unified) China" Qin Shi Huang is said to have been born after his father died, that and the account that he wasn't even his fathers child!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this economic data on "Arabs" involve Chaldeans?

In this document http://econdev.cus.wayne.edu/Files/ArabAmericanStudy.pdf it states that some figures for "Arabs" do not include people who identify themselves as "Chaldeans" (often Chaldeans do not identify themselves as Arab) and that some of the figures do include Chaldeans.

But I am unclear how this data was used for the conclusions on p. 18 about the 47,924 to 58,515 jobs held by "Arab Americans" and the 99,494 and 141,541 jobs associted with economic activity from that group. Does this figure include Chaldeans or does it not? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the people publishing the study to define their own terms. If it is not the pdf you already have, you should email the authors or the school itself if you cannot contact them directly. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chart on p. 6 (Figure 1 Arabic Population Estimates for 2000 and 2004 for the Four-County Region) does not include Chaldeans.

p. 7 states "Using the conventional approach, reported ancestry, showed the Arabic population to be 96,363 in the four-county region in 2000 and 131,650 in 2004. The estimate for 2004 used data from the 2004 American Community Survey, also published by the U.S. Census Bureau. We then used an expanded definition of Arabic that considered reported birthplace and languages spoken."

The chart on p. 8 (Figure 2 Arab Americans Living in the Four-County Region, 2000, 2004, 2005 Estimated population based on reported ancestry Point estimate (in white text) and 90% confidence intervals) does include Chaldeans

p. 7 states "As a second preliminary step, we examined data illustrating population change among Arab Americans between 2000 and 2005 by comparing population estimates drawn from the 2000 Census and the 2004 and 2005 American Community Surveys. Again, we estimated the Arab American population using ancestry as the selection criteria. We included all persons reporting Arabic ancestry as their first or second ancestry; however, in this step, we also included persons reporting membership in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac ancestry group. This conforms to the population estimation methods used by well-known researcher John Zogby, whose estimates include the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group, however, Zogby’s estimates are also adjusted using a proprietary methodology (Zogby Worldwide, 2006)."
p. 9 states "The 2000 Census classifies individuals as Arabic whose ethnic origin is one of the 22 countries that are members of the Arab League."
p. 12 in the employment by industry it states "We used the American Factfinder database to query the 2000 Census for employment by industry counts for Arab Americans (as defined by reported ancestry and including the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac group). In all, employed Arab Americans accounted for a total of 47,924 jobs in 2000 in the four-county region. See Figure 6."

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Martel of Anjou

Why was Charles Martel of Anjou name Charles Martel? Was that his own personal nickname or to honor the earlier Charles Martel?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Whys" are hard to answer and I haven't found a reference. But it's possible "the Hammer" was not that uncommon a name to give a royal/leader? Other examples besides Charles Martel are Judas Maccabeus and your Charles' contemporary, Edward I of England. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]