Talk:Sachsensumpf

Clean up
Many parts of this article need clean up. It seems to have been written by a person or persons who are not fluent in the English language. Many of the constructs in sentences have a foreign feel to them. Much of the information is from German magazines and newspapers making it difficult to verify the information. Partly because it is in German, and in part it is difficult to verify what is stated. Much seems to come from Die Zeit, a German newspaper which is generally considered highbrow and dependable. It will take me a long time to work through this substantial article. Any help is appreciated. JHvW 20:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back here in time. It is a translation from the German Wikipedia article as it appeared 2014/2015. As far as possible a 1:1 translation with no added leaning in any direction from me. "Die Zeit" as source is acceptable, further there was reporting throughout German media on the matter and as I said, it is as close to the German article as possible, sourcing is all the same. Can you tell me if there is anything I can still do to help out here? 6583-GSBE (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Good grief, I had completely forgotten this edit. Occasionally I look things up in Wikipedia when I am reading something that contains facts that I was not aware of. I seem to remember that I was "interested in" (reading about) serial killers with a sexual motive (you know people like Dutroux and Fourniret). I do not believe in most conspiracy theories but I am always intrigued by suggested cover-ups. This is what led me to Sachsensumpf. Because I can read German I thought I would have a look at the references, which led me to place my remark on the talk page. In 2010 I got into a conflict with some other editors (I will not bother you with the details) which made me decide to stop editing structurally. I occasionally edit stuff when I see gross mistakes (like stating that someone is the father when he is actually the brother). To answer your question I would suggest you read the article, if you think it meets WP guidelines (not the MOS) and is understandable for someone with a reasonable grasp of English (I presume you realise that there are many non-English speaking persons -like myself- who use Wikipedia as a reference guide, they must be able to understand what is written) leave it as it is, otherwise change what needs to changed. My concern with these types of articles is that they appear in the sensationalist press and some journalists have the habit of believing that what a colleague has written must be true. I have seen instances where a reference actually came from a source after it was quoted in three different media first (each quoting the previous). In this case I think it will be very hard to trace the origins of the article. It is an old affair and I can not remember hearing about it in the Netherlands (which is where I live). Although I do seem to remember that in German Sachsensumpf (I presume you know that sumpf means a morass in German) is used as slang (like "Watergate") for a cover-up of sorts (usually involving high-ranking offcials). JHvW 10:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

April 2021: Article still a disorganized, discursive morass
What it lacks is organization and concision. It should be rewritten, as the German Wikipedia article is not an adequate basis for an article on this topic in the English Wikipedia, whose readers likely are unfamiliar with the subject. "What is the bottom line" is what any reader wants to know.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)