Humanities desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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 12

Entrepreneur at old age

Two questions. 1. Please provide some examples of people who became successful entrepreneurs only at old age. 2. Who became billionaire at the oldest age? I've seen a lot of references about youngest billionaires, but it is difficult to find references discussing people who became billionaire at the oldest age. As I can see, Warren Buffett became a billionaire in 1990, when he was 59 years old. Is there example of a person becoming billionaire after the age of 65 or beyond? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably many examples of people who were millionaires for many years and just hit the billion dollar mark in old age. Is that really what you mean ? As for people who got rich late in life, Colonel Sanders is an example. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my first question is about individuals who were "poor" during their youth and middle age, but got rich at old age. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Amos of Famous Amos cookies almost fits the bill. He opened his first store when he was 39, according to our article. When he actually got rich, whatever that means, I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 05:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Paul Newman might meet the criterion of someone becoming a successful entrepreneur later in life. Obviously he wasn't poor in middle age, but he completely changed where he got most of his income from by marketing his salad dressings. You may also be interested in John Bird (entrepreneur). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure his life changed, but I don't quite get how he ever 'got most of his income from by marketing his salad dressings' since both the article you linked to and Newman's Own and the companies website [1] says he donated all the profits to charity. (Technically since he did receive the money and it was a lot, it may be that sometime after he founded the company you can argue most of his income did come from the company. But since he was giving it away it still seems a bit misleading.)Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not misleading at all, Nil. He made his millions, then chose to give it all away. The end result for his own hip pocket may have been zero, but that isn't the same thing as saying he never made the money in the first place. The success of his venture is measured by the profits he made, not by how he chose to dispose of the profits. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Yes his venture was very successful and I'm sure it changed his life. But I don't get the relevance of this as a reply to me because I never disputed it (in fact I made it clear in my first reply I did not). I still feel it's quite misleading to suggest most of his income came from marketing his salad dressing, when all this income was donated to charity from the beginning (which was always the intention from before the company was set up) without mentioning this. Particularly given the OPs original question was concerning people who became successful entrepreneurs only at old age which was later (but before TammyMoet or you replied) clarified to be people who were poor during their youth and middle age but got rich at an old age. Even more so since TammyMoet's said 'Obviously he wasn't poor in middle age, but he completely changed where he got most of his income from by marketing his salad dressings'. All of which take together would lead one to believe if you weren't already aware of the details that the venture significantly enriched him (personally) finacially. But which it did not since he was always giving that money away. (Again I'm sure it enriched him in many other ways but this is a moot point since I'm not denying that.)

Note that if he had set it up a different way so the money never came to him at all but went directly to charity via a foundation (which seems to be what's going on now that he's passed away), it would be even more clear that this was misleading to say 'most of his income from by marketing his salad dressings' since in that case he would be clearly getting no income from the venture. That the venture was successful would remain true but as I've said I've never disputed this. It doesn't mean it would be accurate to say he got most of his income from it he was definitely getting no income from it (and I'm sure there are examples of this although I can't think of any off the top of my head). The fact that he choose to set it up in the way he did and therefore the money was technically his income, while I'm sure he had his good reasons, doesn't really change the substanial point that it's misleading to suggest without clarification or explaination that he got most of his income from the venture later in life.

Note also that I've never said Paul Newman may not be a relevant example, simply pointed out the way he was described was misleading, particularly in the context of this question. To put it a different way, being a successful entrepreneur doesn't require you personally to become rich financially (although it's not entirely clear if the OP is interested in cases when the person did not) even if the venture you start and run is very successful financially. I've never intended to deny this. However it's still quite questionable to imply someone personally got rich financially when they did not. In a case like this, it would be far better to properly explain the situation i.e. that the venture was rather successful and likely changed his life in many ways. Rather then try to argue that because the money technically came to the person, even if the intention from the beginning was to give it all away, which was followed, that the person personally got rich financially.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, when Newman's Own was being launched, I read an interview in a UK woman's magazine with Newman, in which he claimed that he knew it was time to go properly into business with Newman's Own foodstuffs when the amount he earned through selling his salad dressings exceeded the amount he earned from films. I thought this might be referenced in his article but it isn't. I didn't know about the charity donations bit. So I defend my statement and I still believe it to be accurate, although I can't reference it - it was, after all, in the days before t'internet and not all trashy woman's mags have online archives! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, example where the person themselves doesn't become rich, per se, but create a legacy by establishing a company, should be counted. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a doozy of a really lame journal to publish in

Hi all, I'm doing a PhD, the downside of which is I have to do something substantial along the way, such as publish in a journal. Everything I read is very boring, and I don't like the looks of things, so I'm looking to publish in the least rigorous journals. I know there are ranked lists of journals, but I can't seem to find any online (except maybe this but I can't understand it). Is there a really easy way to get published, like a journal that will publish anything?

For the record, I'm doing a fairly interdisciplinary PhD to do with learning languages using IT, so there could be a range of journals in the humanities/social sciences that I could contribute to. Basically, I figure, the softer the publication, the more I can go outside my area of expertise, so it doesn't have to be strictly in my field, just really undiscerning.

Also, can anyone tell me how to interpret the table in the link I gave - I don't quite get what it's telling me, although I get that the A, B, C classification is some kind of rating scheme. I just don't know much about what A, B, C correspond to - citations elsewhere, or rigour in what they publish, etc. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [corrected self - turns out I have no idea what doozy means] IBE (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does your school (or faculty) have its own journal? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Irreproducible Results or Annals of Improbable Research? Or maybe Social Text... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a PhD student... and this sounds like a really bad idea. The 'least rigorous journals' do not have good reputations (obviously), and publishing in them will not be very helpful towards your future career. Presumably, at some stage, you will need to impress someone enough with your progress that they award you a PhD, and publishing in a low-quality journal outside your field is not the best way of doing this. Don't you have a supervisor to give you advice on this? I wouldn't think that sending out a PhD student to go through the whole process of choosing a journal and writing and submitting your first paper by yourself is normal. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on your field, but I've gotten endless solicitations from Chinese online journals with vague names (I've deleted them, but informatics and cybernetics and systems play pretty heavily in their titles, if I'm remembering right) that have nothing to do with my field of research, and I suspect they would be pretty easy ones to go with. I think it's kind of a silly operation, though. If you're looking for a way out of the field, see if you can turn the Ph.D. into a terminal masters. Having a Ph.D. in a field you don't care about or haven't really worked much in will be more on an anchor around your neck than an asset when you look for jobs. A low-grade Ph.D. is not as valuable as a low-grade masters; you get all of the baggage that comes with having a Ph.D., and none of the benefits. Just my two cents, entirely based on anecdotal experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the little of what you have said ( “I have to do something substantial along the way”) I think that you are maybe looking too far ahead. First, concentrate on doing something that will provide the basis for a worthwhile (i.e. high quality and original) submission to a journal. By that time, you may well find you have more idea about which journals are best to submit to. Also, they maybe more inclined to accept your paper and the better the quality, the more likely it is to be cited many, many times here on Wikipedia et al. and lead you to a Noble prize ( or if you're very imaginative and lucky an Ig) ;-) --Aspro (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bye de way: have you read are article on Duolingo ? --Aspro (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for those helpful replies, especially to Aspro for the excellent resource, Duolingo. It overlaps quite well with my planned project. Basically, re: my question: The tone was somewhat whimsical because I didn't want to bore people with exact details about why and how much I dislike the thought of publishing. I love what I do, except for the thesis writing bit, and the publication bit. The venom is not from any dislike of writing a good thesis or article, but from the profound and inescapable sense that "good" isn't what they are after. Every day I have had to read rubbish about "leveraging multiple affordances" and other such nonsense, and each time I have just hung my head in despair. Maybe they meant "using the capabilities of ...", but they didn't know any verbs except those that started out as nouns. As for looking into it early, it is just a preliminary scan I'm looking for, to get the search going, and find a way into the jungle, rather than a way out. Any further advice appreciated. IBE (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your original question, I agree with Adam Bishop - the easiest peer-reviewed journal to get accepted by is likely to be one run by your department or faculty. These are often designed to enable PhD students to get used to the peer-review process and achieve a publication at an early stage of their research. If your institution doesn't have one, some other institutions with similar journals may be willing to accept submissions from outside, particularly if you have some links with the place. An alternative might be to ask whether presenting at a conference and having your work appear in the proceedings would suffice. Warofdreams talk 16:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP linked to the infamously shite Excellence in Research for Australia ranked journals list. The ERA list is a 5 point scale: A* A B C [not listed]. C ranked items are basically gutter trash in terms of promotions. Of course, the ERA ranking exercise was a dogs breakfast of the professoriat and academic managers deliberately brutalising people for publishing outside their Field of Research codes or their Faculty's designated FORC set. Which sucks if you're in 220201 Business and Labour History, but your faculty demands only items in other FORC ranges. The above advice is good. You should speak with your supervisor about this, if you cannot speak with your supervisor about this, you should speak with your adjunct, co or secondary supervisor or your PhD programme head, because you need a new supervisor. While publishing in a variety of journals can be a strength, you should be publishing your best research in the places where the most people interested in the research will read it. On the other hand, you should be developing a second sense for what to publish where by reading long run series of journals in your fields. Doing "off-topic" work can be rewarding, but if you're straying outside your disciplinary boundaries you should be coauthoring with someone who has disciplinary expertise in the field. SImilarly if you're straying outside your object of research boundaries, you should be looking to coauthor. There's no point in publishing shit for the sake of publication, though there is something to be debated about publishing a large volume of low importance work, particularly where this work ties into an existing major research programme in your discipline / object of study. And, as Humphrey McQueen reminds us: the purpose of study is to advance the class war (or glorify God more, or cement the liberal bourgeois state apparatus, or present basic research to technologists, or develop applied technology for commercialisation)—if you're not serving your higher purpose in research, it might be time to talk to University counselling services, and your PhD programme convenor. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Iran

Is north Tehran the only part of Iran that is liberal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.37 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a direct answer, but you could read Liberalism in Iran. The word "liberal" has many meanings (see e.g. liberalism) and it's not clear what you mean by a region being liberal - do you mean it has more liberal laws, or do you simply want to know placs where Iranian liberals happen to live? The city of Tabriz seems to be a center of anti-government protest.[2][3] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Colapeninsula said, liberalism means different things in different parts of the world. In Iran, a slightest opposition to implementation of Sharia law may be viewed as a liberal position. But this is not what the father of liberalism described in Two Treatises of Government. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as liberal as Amsterdam, then ? StuRat (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC) :-) [reply]

Definitely not. Even the US is nowhere near the Netherlands :) --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, some Dutch protestants are archconservative even by Iranian standards. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK legal question - not advice

LadyLucan.co.uk states "No death certificate can ever be issued if there is no body". Is that true? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death in absentia#England and Wales references this BBC News article titled "When is a missing person declared dead?", which states "If they [the police] believe there should be an inquest, possibly to help the family receive a death certificate and reach closure, they will file a report to the local coroner." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... so a more honest statement might be "No death certificate can ever be issued if the police believe the person is still alive". Dbfirs 09:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LadyLucan has said she believes the 7th Earl is dead. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW reading that site and Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, it's stated that he was presumed deceased in 1992 and declared legally dead in 1999 for the purposes of winding up his estate. The source used for the later claim [4] says the death certificate was not issued but doesn't directly discuss why. However reading that source as well as the site and our article, it's apparent while the general consensus is that he's most likely dead, not everyone agrees he's definitely dead. Perhaps the fact that he's the only? suspect in a murder means the police are more reluctant to ask for an inquest in to his death. I'm also note sure if there's any real evidence he's dead other then the fact he vanished without a trace after the murder he allegedly committed, if this is true it likely doesn't help. And it sounds like there's a lot of family stuff going on in the background. I'm also not sure whether anyone cares that much about the death certificate. It sounds like his wife would like to have it but other loose ends like granting probate (even though his estate was not worth much) and clearing up the status of his title seem to have taken greater prominence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the past bills and legislative actions be found in a comprehensive and chronological list?

I was looking into some of the past records and could find a list of all the people that died any given year, is there a similiar way to see what passes and fails in the US government's house of rep. of congress? Maybe even include what past laws are being changed by each bill or what old bills are effected by the new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.139.2 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THOMAS has a database of bills in the Senate and House of Representatives organized by two-year Congressional term, with information on co-sponsors, committee referrals etc. as well as the full text of the bills. There doesn't seem to be specific information on existing Acts affected by the bills, but I didn't look too closely. Alkari (?), 12 March 2012, 21:57 UTC

The Congressional Record? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would contain the desired info, but so much junk is in there it would take a great deal of sifting to get to the good stuff. StuRat (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]