Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 October 18

= October 18 =

Butchers of Sobibor
In the article about Sobibor, it says that one of the two murderers who actually operated the diesel generators piping exhaust gases into the gas chamber was a Soviet soldier by the name of Emil Kostenko (the other was the infamous Erich Bauer). I wonder, what happened to Kostenko after the war? Was he hanged for his crimes, like he so richly deserved? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What have you found on the internet so far about this Kostenko? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This page from the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team simply says "served at Sobibor" while other entries have details of later trials and executions. I looked through five pages of Google results without finding any reference to his post war fate. Alansplodge (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Only from what appears on the Sobibor extermination camp page here, Emil Kostenko is described as a "former Soviet soldier" - and earlier on the page (lead paragraph, content unattributed) we read that there were non-Jewish Soviet POWs at Sobibor. This would indicate that Emil Kostenko was a POW designated to work as a Sonderkommando in operating the gassing facility. If so, he may have been exonerated for performing the acts under duress. Compare with Erich Bauer who joined the SA in 1933 and was a staff sergeant in SS uniform when posted to Sobibor where he operated the extermination facility until the camp's liquidation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Other sources say that he was Ukrainian; there was no love lost between the Ukrainians and Stalin after he killed several million of them by inducing a famine in the early 1930s. Many Ukrainians served the Nazis, both in the Waffen SS and as auxiliary guards. I'll find some more detail when I have time. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Hiwi (volunteer). Many of them just wanted to get away from the appalling conditions in German POW camps, but by all accounts, Kostenko was quite enthusiastic about his job. On the other hand, workers in the Sonderkommando were actually concentration camp inmates and indeed worked under extreme duress. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even aside from the question of duress vs. free will, there's a big difference between digging the graves and actually doing the killing, no? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't mention "diesel" btw. Bauer testified it was a gasoline engine. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This Google Books search result says; "...the enormous motors, taken from a pair of Soviet T-34 tanks, that provided the carbon monoxide...". If that is correct, they would have been Kharkiv model V-2 diesel engines. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that comes from "Ezcape from Sobibor" by David Fischler, an 18 page story about zombies killing nazis. More about the controversy can be found here. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many apologies - the perils of Googling from the hip! Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be much more concerned with the contributor here or elsewhere that never Googled "from the hip", it would be like the cowpoke in 1893 that never ever shot from the hip, how'd that go there's the quick and then there's the . . .  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   04:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems there is some confusion about my phrase, see here for those not familiar with the old west oh and it was the quick and the dead, meaning that a cowpoke today would most probably google from the hip as well. :-)  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  08:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

People that intentionally cause accidents in order to sue insurance company
There is a sub-culture of people that intentionally cause automobile accidents in order to sue for insurance. They particularly like wrecking into semi tractor-trailers. What are these people called? And where can I read more about them? Thanks. Fishface gurl (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge there isn't a 'name' for these people & they do more then wreck into tractor-trailers but have all kinds of schemes to involve corporate and business trucks/cars that aren't paid by the company directly but paid by their insurer. Some of these even include staging/faking pedestrian accidents with them.  See more at wikipedia's article on Insurance fraud.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   04:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, "fraudsters" works pretty well, although it's not specific to just insurance fraud. Equisetum (talk &#124; contributions) 06:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The phenomenon has recently been called 'crash for cash' here in the UK, though I haven't heard a specific term for the perpetrators yet. Fgf10 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have the article Staged crash. As for the people, car-accident faker? Oda Mari (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More information at Insurance fraud, which calls them "fraudsters". Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These fraudsters have inspired a whole industry in supplying Dashcams for cars and trucks, so that the driver has an effective defense when the other party causes an accident, and has a defense against tickets police write without foundation. The funniest such video I've seen shows a man wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase running up and throwing himself against the hood of a stationary automobile while glaring at the driver, possibly cracking a rib and at least causing contusions, in an apparent effort to set up a claim that the car struck him. Austria must have a powerful fraudster lobbying group, since per the article dashcams are illegal there. Edison (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this article, it's to prevent the filming of ugly people. "Undesirable filmed people could still claim to civil damages of up to 20,000 euros". Must be a bad translation lol! ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

what kind of game is this?
Let's say there's two prisoners that made a heinous crime and a warden that aims to get a confession that will close the deal. The warden can say to both prisoners that when they tell him the truth, then they will be set free while the other one will be imprisoned for life. He may "sweeten" the deal by either saying that the other prisoner is breaking down or that the investigators in the field have already cracked the case and has no need of the prisoner.

If the warden get's both prisoners to talk then he hits the jackpot although one confession is enough to met his goal. So the only way for the two prisoners to win against the warden is to not play the game at all but I guess the warden has already established measures against this outcome. So what kind of game is this? I just thought about it a few days ago while watching about political scandals but forgot where I read about it. Thanks in advance -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds a lot like the Prisoner's dilemma, but with a bit of the warden's perspective thrown in.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, plus if they're in prison it means they've already been convicted, so the "deal" has already been closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless they're on remand of course. Alansplodge (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not likely, in the normal situation in the USA at least. (POW's are a different story.) Although, in the OP's question, if you substitute "jail" and "jailer", it might work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So we know they have committed a heinous crime and are in prison but they haven't got evidence against them or been convicted? Sounds very Alice and Wonderland with 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards'. If neither confesses does that mean they must be even more evil and cunning than we first thought? Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the US at least, they really seem to want a confession and for the person to plead guilty, even if they already have irrefutable evidence of guilt. This is all just to avoid an expensive trial. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't always work. Look at the Aurora, CO, shootings for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, from the POV of the victims, this is a terrible policy, giving the perps a break just to save a little work. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, this has flagged up the fact that we don't have an article on the Goodyear indication in English law (see this rather impenetrable document for the official policy), and some cats should make a start on writing one. Tevildo (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Care to give us your summary ? StuRat (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "A Goodyear indication, in English law, is an indication given by the judge, generally at the plea and case management hearing [on which we probably need an article, too], of the likely sentence the accused can expect if a guilty plea is entered. If the accused pleads guilty, a more severe sentence than the one indicated cannot be imposed by the Court - R v Goodyear established that such a sentence would not be consistent with Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.  It is also important for the judge to establish that the plea is the free choice of the defendant, not influenced by considerations of sentence.  See also Plea bargain." Tevildo (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically it's a Prisoner's dilemma with incomplete information. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I second Looie. Shadowjams (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Button hole on my shirt
I have a second-hand shirt. I point that out because I can't go back to where it was purchased to ask about this. It's just a typical button down shirt. It has a feature which I've never seen before and I'm lost as to the function of this feature. The cuffs on the sleeves have two buttons so that you have some freedom as to how tight you can keep the cuffs. The odd part is that between these two buttons is a button hole. The distance between the buttons is basically just the length of the button hole between them. So what is this button hole for?

Note: This is not a request for medical or legal advice, so please don't hat or remove the question. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 05:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll cancel that call I was planning to make to my doctor, Hugo Hackenbush, and to my lawyers, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga and McCormick. From the way you're describing it, it sounds like they've allowed for the possibility of using cufflinks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL... Hungadunga? Sounds so African... Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible it's supposed to sound African, although McCormick is more like Scots-Irish. That and the Hackenbush reference have to do with Groucho Marx. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup! I've heard that surname somewhere... wait a minute... Ha, Neil McCormick... :)... Groucho Marx, I've heard about him and about the Marx brothers.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  14:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I like "Gonif, Gonif and Shyster", or "Grabble, Twister and Fleesome". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The classic law firm name is "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe". StuRat (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sue, Grabbit and Runne in the UK. Tevildo (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! I hadn't considered that!  It's not really a nice dress shirt, so the thought of cufflinks hadn't even occurred to me.  Thanks!  Dismas |(talk) 08:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Were these holes for something else, could this cause a medical complication for Dismas using them incorrectly? And could that subsequently result in a lawsuit against this Reference Desk? I suggest removing the question since we don't give legal or medical advice. (Tongue in cheek) Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 08:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See Warning - Lighter Cufflinks for a legal warning about medical problems using cufflinks. Nope we shouldn't be answering this ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the stupidest invention in history! There is no possible reason or safe use for such an item. I hope the high price is a good deterrent. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Potash cartel, game theory, food prices, global hunger
From this article about some of the domino effects of the end of the potash cartel coordinated between Russia and Belarus, a lot of questions pop up. It's fascinating how many issues this obscure commodity and system is linked to. http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/economics/end-of-potash-cartel-should-reduce-food-prices-in-arabian-gulf

-"The Russians wanted price stability, but Belarus, which draws up to 20 per cent of its national income from the cartel, wanted higher prices." Wouldn't both members of a cartel want the same thing which is maximum prices? That's the point of a cartel as I understand it.

-"As potash accounts for up to 25 per cent of farming input costs, the knock-on effect on food prices from these events is significant. Up to now, many farmers, especially in emerging nations such as India – also a significant supplier of food to the Arabian Gulf – have simply done without. This has led to lower harvests and higher prices." It seems the potash cartel have been responsible for inflating the price of potash and thereby increasing the price of food worldwide. Considering the poorest one billion people spend the majority of their income on food, if the cartels account for 5-10% food price inflation then the cartels have seemingly huge influence on the number of people in extreme poverty worldwide.

-"Price competition should stimulate potash demand, and with it, investment in the sector – especially in emerging producers in Africa." Price competition means the prices are falling so wouldn't that put some new investments on hold?

Ninedashfive (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the game theory bit is you want everyone else to be in a cartel and limit their production, so the price goes up, but you want to be able to sell all you can produce at that high price. This can lead to cheating, where you promise to limit your production, but don't.  Ultimately, this can all undermine the cartel. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * POtassium is not a rare element. The only thing you accomplish by raising the price of potash is to encourage competitors to come into the business and sell it to undercut you. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Historically new competitors have preferred to enter the cartel(s) instead of competing, and the price of potash has been fixed for more than 100 years. Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover the topic, but Bloomberg has an article here. WTO apparently does not have authority to do anything... 88.148.249.186 (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The question then arises whether the cartel has an arbitrary ability to set prices. Could they not simply double their prices and force everyone to have to pay?  It seems more likely that they are simply charging what the market is willing to bear. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They may be able to manipulate the price within a certain range. I don't know much about potash, so I will use crude oil as an example.  OPEC can manipulate the price within a certain range, but if the price gets too high people will get more efficient cars, drive less, and switch to electric cars.  Also, the higher the price, the more incentive cartel members have to cheat.  And, finally, the US and other nations would put pressure on them to bring prices back down.  So, there are limits. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And at a certain price otherswould enter the market outside the cartel. There's an initial start-up cost for new-comers which gives the cartel a small advantage.  I don't recall the technical name for that. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And the cartel can fight back in other ways. For example, JD Rockefeller's Standard Oil bought out all the trains so the competition couldn't deliver their oil. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially with oil, there also is the "rising tide" argument. If oil is to expensive, economic growth is reduced, leading to less demand for oil, which in turn depresses prices. If, on the other hand, oil is cheaper, the economy is doing better, resulting in more demand for oil and better economy of scale. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Creating a page for myself.
Can I or you create a page for my self as a business owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.24 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can, but it will be very quickly deleted unless you are notable, as confirmed by independent and reliable sources. So, unless you are indeed notable, there's no point, and you shouldn't.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And even if you are notable, you should get someone else to write it for you, to avoid a Conflict of interest, which "is strongly discouraged". Alansplodge (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't, unless you are more famous than this guy: Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_Lilov. Much more famous, since he's getting axed as well. Fishface gurl (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Or, to answer the OP positively, by all means he should write an article about himself or his business if (1) he can do it objectively, and (2) there are reliable and notable published sources (magazines, books, large regional newspapers, not advertisements or trade journals) that have written about him or his business as notable entities. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:Autobiography. Even if you meet our notability standards - and can demonstrate it with the necessary third-party sources - there may be good reasons why you might prefer not to have an article about yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good answer, but also you should create an account before you post an article, since IPs cannot create new articles. Also I believe there are people and entities that will write an article for a fee ranging from $250 to $9,500.  Wikipedia used to discourage paid editing but it is ok with it now. Fishface gurl (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above statement is complete bullshit. Wikipedia is not in any way 'ok with' paid editing - any article created for payment is liable to be deleted, and the contributor blocked from editing as in violation of thee Conflict of interest guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Your vocabulary is indicative of your lack of culture. Besides that, you are just wrong. Fishface gurl (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's just right. WP:NOPAY explains why. -  Ka renjc (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with μηδείς. This practice of editing with a clear conflict of interest such as this is that it is officially "strongly discouraged". To quote the actual policy at WP:COI:


 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged".


 * The odds of an article that you'd create yourself being acceptable are right up there with snowballs in hell. I absolutely guarantee that it will be deleted very quickly if you do create it.  The reason is that if you are writing about yourself or your business, there is simply no realistic chance that you're going to "place the interests of the encyclopedia first" as Wikipedia requires that you do.  It's just human nature.


 * If you are sure that either your or your business meet Wikipedia's exacting standards of notability - then your best bet is to go to our Articles For Creation service and recommend that an article about you/your-business is created. You can give the volunteers there whatever evidence you have of the notability of your subject - and if it passes Wikipedia guidelines, it will be created by someone with a neutral perspective on the subject matter.  Better that than going to all the trouble of writing the article yourself - and then have it be deleted...which is highly likely if you just go ahead and create it yourself.


 * Another thing to consider if such an article were to be created is that people may very well fill it with criticism of your business - and if that could be substantiated, you'd have absolutely no recourse to getting it removed...so beware of what you wish for!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the concept of objectivity, and the meaning of the word if, Steve. Various people here also seem to be unfamiliar with the policy WP:BITE, and unable to assume good faith and competence on the part of the inquirer.  MY apologies to him for the extremely rude and discouraging response.  But if he has something that fits the criteria, and can write it objectively, he should by all means proceed, assuming also he's prepared to deal with the attitudes he's seen here writ large. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gotta agree with Steve here. The policy is that COI editing is not just discouraged, but strongly discouraged.  No ifs or buts, no qualifications.  When you water that down to "It's OK to COI edit as long as you're objective about it", it's sorta like "It's OK to steal from rich people, because they wouldn't miss it anyway".  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Writing an article about yourself is not a crime, and writing a good article about yourself is not a lesser crime. It's simply wrong to tell the OP he is incapable of objectivity (maybe you and steve are--but your attributing it to the OP is what's called psychological projection.  The OP's been warned, in the rudest possible way.  I wish him luck.  The OP might also look at the teahouse and the help desk (which is where he should have come, instead of her to the prima donna desk.)  He can find that at the left by clicking on the help button.  And he can contact me if he has published sources available on the internet and I will gladly advise him. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe it's okay as long as you submit a COI article to WP:AfC for third-party, objective appraisal. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking of projection, Medeis, nobody has told the OP he's incapable of objectivity. You're the only one fixated on that issue.  As one who regularly and unilaterally decrees what is and is not acceptable around here, you should be supporting WP's actual policies, and not reinterpreting them in your uniquely creative way to mean something diametrically opposed to what they actually say.  You simply have no discretion to advise anyone that Policy X, Y or Z can be safely ignored as long as they adhere to some condition you have dreamt up and have arbitrarily imposed.  Because that's what you're basically doing - telling the OP the COI policy doesn't apply to him.  Because you say so.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking first, which is more than most people in your position do. Three good reasons why you are discouraged from doing this: (1) The rules demand that you disclose your conflict of interest.  When you do, your work will come under particularly fierce scrutiny for potential bias and other issues. (2) If you don't disclose your COI you'll be in breach of policy and, if spotted, your work faces deletion or having big ugly tags slapped onto it to warn others that it may not be objective, which doesn't look great.  3) You won't be able to control the content of the article.  You may not like what it becomes when others start editing it too, stripping out any promotional language and putting in referenced information, "warts and all".  I suggest you ask yourself why you want this article on Wikipedia, and what else you want to do here. If the only plan is to raise your public profile or improve your company's image, then you are indeed strongly discouraged from wasting your time - advertising isn't accepted.  If you or the firm are genuinely notable, with lots of past coverage in reliable sources, and you still want to proceed, then write something neutral and submit it via the articles for creation process, being totally honest and clear about who you are.

and how you are linked to the subject of the article. That's how to to stay within the rules. - Ka renjc (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said, Karenjc. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's clear editing without disclosing your COI is actually violating anything. If you read our WP:COI carefully, it doesn't say you are required to disclose your COI. It simply strong encourages it just like it strongly discourages most editing when you have a COI particularly paid advocacy. I was hoping Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254 would provide some clarity, but you can see the closing admin didn't clearly comment on the specific point and there were a number of issues including WP:SOCK and WP:NOTHERE as well as the core policies (as mentioned at WP:NOPAY) which the editors involved were seemingly violating. (I supported the ban despite clearly expressing the opinion that WP:COI didn't require disclosure.)
 * This doesn't mean it's a good idea to create such an article (or to not disclose your COI) as the other stuff is still a risk including additional scrutiny (more than the additional scrutiny when someone with a COI creates an article) and tags and I would note there's also a risk of media attention. Remember either way you have no control over your article and we are an encylopaedia, plenty of people have found out they would actually prefer the article on them or their company to be deleted because part of being an encylopaedia and our policies mean articles can end up being a bit negative.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As others havde said, creating the article yourself is a bad idea. As for whether we can create one, it will depend entirely on whether you meet our WP:Notability requirements, which at the basic level means there must be sufficient coverage of you (not just your company if you want an article on yourself) in reliable secondary sources (meaning stuff like newspaper articles, magazines, certain books etc; not anything self published or where publication is paid for including by your company such as advertisements, blogs, an autobiography, you or your company's website). If you do, then an article on you could exist. This doesn't mean one is likely to be created, there are various ways you can ask, but no guarantee anyone will create one as we are all volunteers. I do suggest you ask at the help desk or similar if you have any followup as this question appears off topic here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)