Talk:Cesspit

ALERT to maintainer

I think a paragraph has been subtly vandalized. However, I do not want to edit it myself for lack of knowledge of the US state mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.82.126.196 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Literal Usage

Any thoughts on the more common non-literal usage of Cesspool - in relation to a group, be it part a government, business, etc. ?

--Wakod2002 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Huntington, New York

John Derbyshire wrote a piece in National Review (2011-01-24, p.55) about cesspools in Huntington, New York. The article is not yet available online, but when it is it might be useful to add to this article. Citation info is:

{{cite
|url=http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Straggler/098.html
|title=Shovel Ready
|column=The Straggler
|journal= National Review
|author=John Derbyshire
|page=55
|volume=63
|issue=1
|date=2011-01-24
|issn=0028-0038 }}

— Loadmaster (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it's now available online, I added a cite to it on the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion between cesspit and septic tank, same image used

This article needs to be made clearer to show if it's the same or different to a septic tank (people often use the term "cesspit" quite losely). The same image is used on this page (caption says "septic tank") as on the septic tank page! I don't think it is a good image - where is the effluent going out of the tank?! Might be an idea to combine the two articles or to make it really clear what the difference is (on both pages). EvM-Susana (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Scheme of a modern septic tank

EvM-Susana (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

German translation

The German translation in Wikidata says "Sickergrube" which is wrong, this is for rainwater and such. The translation for cesspit is "Klärgrube" (they even use the same picture!) but I can't change it, because that word is given as a translation for Septic_tank, which it is not. The Septic_tank should be "Faulgrube" or "Abortgrube", but there are no entries for this. Anyone know how to fix this translation mess? --WiseWoman (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure you are right. Sickergrube is not just for rainwater, it can also be for wastewater. I am German but will need to check with my German colleagues on this... Septic tank I thought is Klärgrube or Sickergrube. Actually I don't think we make a clear distinction between septic tank and cesspit in German... Check here. Once we are certain about what to link to where, you just click on edit links at the end of the languages list to the left of the article. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange category

What's the point of the category "toilet pits"? This article is the only one in this category. Let's delete it?EvM-Susana (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I always assume that others more well read than me know of eclectic uses for such categories. Perhaps not.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Same here. :-) Does anyone know how to delete a category? I couldn't find a delete button or a "request deletion" button? Wait, perhaps it disappears if I take out the category link from the article. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged the category for speedy deletion so it should disappear in about 4 days. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cesspit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614074603/http://www.1010wins.com:80/pages/572593.php?contentType=4&contentId=602247 to http://www.1010wins.com/pages/572593.php?contentType=4&contentId=602247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The "United States" Paragraph in the History section needs to be reworked, seems like misinformation or bias

What tipped the scale for me here was when the paragraph referenced the two teens drowning in a cesspit on Long Island after going on at length about "chronic" cesspool collapses on Long Island, despite being unable to reference a collapse later than 2010. That drowning reference is written in such a way that leads the reader to believe that the two kids died from yet another cesspool collapsing when in fact that was not a cesspool collapse at all. I checked the article, it says they fell in after they removed the lid. This is a fine example of sophistry here, if I may have the permission to say so.

Whoever wrote this section also seems to feel that there were "staggering mortality rates" in the late 1800's within the US (citing the "National Experience") and somehow this is all related to cesspit useage/improper waste disposal, although it is unclear how exactly they were relating the statement to topic of the article. It's all just a bunch of grasping at straws to try to convince the reader that prior to modern building/septic laws and technology, people had bleak and terrible living conditions and just created a huge mess with their freedom in this regard. Even if my evaluation of the bias was untrue, the evidence OF a bias and sophistry is apparent, and this section needs to be reworked and enriched with well-rounded and interesting facts.
Thanks. 72.241.44.64 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I have made some quick changes to the article. We should actually check if these weren't rather septic tanks and not cesspits (the media sometimes uses the terms wrongly). If they were septic tanks then move it to the article on septic tanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)