DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Charles Thau

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Request neutral editor help

[edit]

Requesting neutral editor to review and resubmit due to potential COI. wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwaukee911 (talk • contribs)

You have submitted the draft for a review and it is pending. You are free to submit a draft for which you have a COI, that's one of the purposes of this process. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! I understand it is allowed for me to continue editing. However, if I leave as is, without a neutral editor to review (and RESUBMIT), will not it pose a risk that Wikipedia WILL NOT therefore approve/accept the draft? Milwaukee911 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. You've submitted it, it will eventually be reviewed. The process is as follows
  1. a draft is created
  2. it is submitted by the creator
  3. it appears in a category of drafts awaiting review, where volunteers pick drafts in no particular order to review. The draft may be continue to be edited even while pending review
  4. the review is conducted
  5. the reviewer either accepts the draft and places it in the encyclopedia, or declines it and leaves a reason why. If they feel the draft is hopeless, they will reject it, meaning it can't be submitted again.
  6. If declined, the creator may edit it to address any concerns and resubmit it, returning the process to step 3
331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies for any confusion. This is my first attempt toward contributing to Wikipedia, and I may be overly cautious. Let me explain:
When I first started to develop an article, I was informed the article’s subject matter can NOT be self-serving nor promoting so as to avoid Conflict of Interest. So if the subject matter was NOT about me, nor was I paid to write it, it was in compliance.
However, I was recently informed a Conflict of Interest would still be a concern if the subject matter was related to me (i.e. about MY FATHER). It is in fact about my father.
Hence, upon this realization, I don’t want to have the draft article rejected, and am seeking a neutral reviewer to continue the process, and especially, to RESUBMIT the draft article for acceptance into the Wikipedia portfolio.
That was the purpose of my help request. I don’t want Editors to be skeptical of my innocent intent in writing the draft. I fear if I can’t find a neutral reviewer who will also RESUBMIT the article, any perceived self-promotion and COI will sink my draft.
Can you assist providing direction where options exist to help find someone willing to review, and resubmit this matter?
The article, in my estimation, is a 95 percent solution, with only a minor addition efforts remaining.
Thanks in advance. 184.57.160.149 (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're asking if you can find someone to take over the process of editing and resubmitting the draft, because you fear the reviewer will reject the draft due to you having a conflict of interest. Note that in this context "reviewer" is the person who evaluates the draft, not someone editing it.
You can ask- perhaps af the help desk- but the odds of finding someone else to do what you want to see done aren't good. Someone would need to be willing to take up the work and perhaps do research that they may not be equipped to do.
Merely having a conflict of interest is not a reason to decline or reject a draft in and of itself. As long as it appears you are making progess on the draft, a reviewer is unlikely to reject it. They may decline it- giving you the chance to resubmit it. I think your fears are unfounded. Just wait for the review of the draft before proceeding. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the feedback--it slightly alleviated my concern about COI after all my work. I am just trying to remain upfront, and by all means am not embellishing nor propagating any self interest. The story is such a rare experience, so I want this history to just be educational.
Thanks again. Milwaukee911 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your reassurance that my concern about COI maybe unfounded. I will continue to be upfront, and rest assure the final content will be accurate with no embellishments whatsoever!
thanks again! Milwaukee911 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change

[edit]

If this article gets accepted by Wikipedia, how can the title be changed (either before or after acceptance) to be more reflective of the subject discussed? Specifically, can the title change from "Chaim Thau" to Charles "Chaim" Thau? Milwaukee911 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard---was able to make the change myself. Milwaukee911 (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for Resubmitting this draft

[edit]

Good Day Reviewers This draft is being resubmitted after two prior rejections for non-neutral tone. The current version has been substantially rewritten to align with Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

Key improvements:

  • Neutralized tone and removed subjective/heroic phrasing
  • Added or improved citations from multiple independent, secondary, and reliable sources:
  - The Forward (2025)
  - Der Spiegel (2025)
  - The Milwaukee Journal (1955, 2015)
  - Dayton Daily News (2015)
  - Freie Presse (2015)
  - German public radio (WDR, 2025)
  • Coverage focuses on verifiable public activities, especially the Elbe River link-up

This article now meets the requirements for notability, sourcing, and neutrality. Thank you for reviewing. Milwaukee911 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class reassessment request: Charles Thau

[edit]

Hello, I’d like to request a reassessment of the article Charles Thau, currently rated as C-class.

The article has undergone substantial expansion and improvement, including:

  • Reliable, secondary sourcing from international and U.S. publications (e.g., *Freie Presse*, *Der Spiegel*, *The Forward*, *Military History Now*, *Milwaukee Journal*).
  • A well-organized structure with clear sectioning (Early life, Partisan activity, Red Army service, Postwar, Recognition).
  • Use of historical photographs with proper attribution.
  • Compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V, with personal connection declared.

I believe the article now satisfies the six B-class criteria: 1. **Well-written:** Article is grammatically correct and professionally presented. 2. **Verifiable with no original research:** All major claims are supported by citations from verifiable sources. 3. **Broad in coverage:** Covers key aspects of Thau’s life and significance. 4. **Neutral:** Written from a neutral point of view, with COI declared. 5. **Stable:** No ongoing edit wars or significant content disputes. 6. **Illustrated:** Images are used appropriately and enhance the article.

Any feedback from reviewers is welcome. Thank you! Milwaukee911 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Milwaukee911: I made some slight amendments, especially with the unnecessary spacing between citations. On a side note, do we know his birth name? Was it Chaim? If so, it would be wise to place "born Chaim Thau" in bold in the bracket with the date as it is done so in other articles. Merangs (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merangs,
Thanks so much for the suggestions! Will comply !
You’re awesome ! 184.57.160.149 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist for Charles (Chaim) Thau article toward GA / FA assessment

[edit]

Article improvement checklist

[edit]

This checklist tracks progress toward Good Article (GA) and Featured Article (FA) status for Charles "Charlie" Thau. Updated: Milwaukee911 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🥈 Good Article (GA) Criteria

[edit]
**1. Lead and Structure**
  •  Done Lead exists but should be expanded to 2–3 paragraphs summarizing full life span (WWII, Bricha, immigration, legacy).
  •  Done Infobox complete and properly formatted with key fields (name, birth/death, branch, rank, awards).
  •  Done Add clear section headings: “Early life and education”, “World War II” (exception is topics associated with Elbe Linkup, the notable perspective of the subject Thau role. “Postwar activities”, “Immigration and business career”, “Legacy and recognition”.
  •  Done Short description and dmy date formatting templates in place.
**2. Verifiability and References**
  •  Done Multiple citations provided (Freie Presse 2015, Der Spiegel 2025, Military History Now 2017, Yad Vashem 2025).
  •  Done Replace [1] placeholders with fully defined short citations referencing a “References” list.
  •  Done Ensure every factual statement (e.g., Bricha involvement, business ownership) is sourced.
  •  Done Expand with additional reliable secondary sources—archival, academic, or U.S. press mentions.
**3. Prose and Style**
  •  Done Writing is clear and largely neutral, with encyclopedic tone.
  •  Done Consistent past tense and straightforward phrasing.
  •  Done Slight expansion and smoothing needed for readability and transition flow between paragraphs.
**4. Neutrality**
  •  Done Tone neutral; avoids emotional or subjective phrasing.
  •  Done Consider mentioning any historical debate or uncertainty about photo identification for balance.
**5. Images and Licensing**
  •  Done Infobox photo used correctly and credited with CCA 4.0 International.
  •  Done Confirm the file description page includes full author/source/license metadata (especially for Commons).
**6. Comprehensiveness**
  •  Done Exception is since the notable aspect is the Elbe Linkup,it’s called out from wartime service. Otherwise article adheres to early life, wartime service, and postwar emigration.
  •  Done Expand on Bricha operations in Austria (locations, dates, context).
  •  Done Add detail on U.S. life—businesses, years active, community role.
  •  Done Add “Legacy” section about image commemorations or posthumous recognition.
**7. Readability and Formatting**
  •  Done Consistent dmy dates used.
  •  Done Templates (Short description, Infobox, Use dmy dates) correctly applied.
  •  Done Minimal overlinking; formatting clean.

---

🥇 Featured Article (FA) Criteria

[edit]
**1. Research Depth**
  •  Not done Incorporate archival or scholarly sources (Yad Vashem testimony files, Soviet military records, DP camp archives).
  •  Not done Add at least one published historical secondary source (book or academic paper).
  •  Not done Maintain dense inline citations (every 2–3 sentences).
**2. Prose Polish**
  •  Doing... Prose already tight and clear, but requires line-by-line polish for rhythm and flow.
  •  Not done Integrate list-like statements into smooth paragraphs.
  •  Not done Conduct copyedit pass per WP:FASTYLE.
**3. Media and Layout**
  •  Done Lead image high quality and relevant.
  •  Not done Add one supporting photo (e.g., Bricha operations, DP camp, or U.S. years) with free license.
  •  Done Captions appropriate and factual.
**4. Bibliography and Footnotes**
  •  Not done Standardize all citations to consistent templates ( {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help), {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help), {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)).
  •  Not done Add “Further reading” and “External links” sections.
  •  Not done Archive URLs using |archive-url= and |archive-date=.
**5. Comprehensiveness and Balance**
  •  Doing... Coverage balanced and factual.
  •  Not done Expand historical context: importance of Elbe link-up, photographer (AP’s John Anderson), later exhibition use of photo.
  •  Not done Include secondary commentary or historiography where available.
**6. Review Stages**

---

Status legend:

  •  Done = Complete
  •  Doing... = In progress
  •  Not done = To be done

Notes: This checklist follows WP:WIAGA (Good Article criteria) and WP:WIAFA (Featured Article criteria). Add or modify items as new information emerges. Please sign updates with Milwaukee911 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC) and summarize your changes. Milwaukee911 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for non-free newspaper clippings

[edit]

Fair use rationale for non-free newspaper clippings

[edit]

Two small, low-resolution newspaper clippings are included in this article under fair use, each providing irreplaceable verification of Thau’s business locations and operations in Milwaukee between the 1950s and 1990s.

  • File:ThauGarageListing1961.png – An excerpt from the November 5, 1961 Milwaukee Sentinel (p. 94), listing “Thau’s 66 Service Station, 433 S. 6th Street, Milwaukee.” This source verifies the earliest known business address and operation of Thau’s Phillips 66 station. The clipping is minimal, used solely for verifiability, and not for decorative purposes.
  • File:ThauGarageAd1991.png – A classified advertisement from the July 10, 1991 Milwaukee Journal (p. 70), showing “Thau’s Garage, 4229 W. Greenfield Avenue.” This verifies the later business address and ongoing operation during the early 1990s. The clipping is minimal, contextual, and non-replaceable by a free equivalent.

Both files comply with WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC#8 by providing unique, verifiable evidence that enhances readers’ understanding of the subject. Each is reproduced at low resolution for identification and historical documentation only. Milwaukee911 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on posthumous identity correction (April 2025 addition)

[edit]

This section documents the verified 2008 correction by Dr. Uwe Niedersen, Vorsitzender (Chairman) of the Förderverein Europa Begegnungen e.V., Torgau, who confirmed in correspondence with Joseph Lipsius (69th Infantry Division Association Webmaster) that the American soldier in the “Elbe handshake” photograph had been misidentified for more than sixty years. The email dated 1 September 2008 (cited in-article as a primary source) explicitly retracts Niedersen’s earlier attribution of Delbert Philpott and confirms Bernard Kirschenbaum as the correct figure. The citation complies with WP:PRIMARY, used solely to verify the factual occurrence of the correction. Subsequent secondary reporting by Military History Now (2017) and The Forward (2025) provide contextual coverage. Milwaukee911 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note on private correspondence

[edit]

For transparency regarding the "Mistaken identification" subsection: Exchanged information in 2008 between the 69th Association and Torgau city officials which revealed and verified a correction was needed regarding a wrongly identified American soldier in the Elbe Linkup handshake photograph. It was confirmed through private correspondence between the 69th Infantry Division Association (Joe Lipsius) and Dr. Uwe Niedersen., Torgau Event Board (Torgau), in 2008.

Dr. Uwe Niedersen acknowledged to Joseph Lipsius (69th Infantry Division Association leadership) that acknowledged his (Dr. N’s) earlier publication … had incorrectly identified the central American soldier as Delbert Philpott and confirmed, based on information provided by the 69th, and the Col. Adams Report, that Bernard Kirschenbaum was in fact the American in the photograph’s middle.”

A copy of that correspondence is retained offline by the article’s contributor and is available for confidential review by GA/FA reviewers upon request via email (if this page reaches that assessment level). Per WP:V and WP:RS, the exchange is referenced only in the "Notes" section—not as a public citation—to respect privacy and align with Wikipedia policy on unpublished communications. Milwaukee911 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Good article nomination

[edit]

This article was nominated for Good Article status on 19 October 2025. It is believed to meet the criteria for thorough sourcing, neutrality, prose quality, and structural completeness per Wikipedia's Good Article standards. If you are reviewing this article, please see the references and inline citations for verification of all major claims. Milwaukee911 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--just a gentle ping regarding "Charles Thau", nominated on 19 October 2025.

The article has remained stable and fully cited, and I am happy to assist with any review needs.

Thanks to all reviewers for your time.

Milwaukee911

Note regarding additional verifiable sources on the Elbe Day photo identification

[edit]

During research concurrent with this GA review, additional published sources clarifying the long-standing misidentification of the American soldier in the Elbe Day handshake photograph have been located:

Down by the Riverside. Die Botschaft von der Elbe, 1945–1995 (Leipzig: Thom Verlag, 1995), co-edited by Günter Schöne, Delbert E. Philpott, and Uwe Niedersen — illustrating Philpott’s institutional role in Torgau’s 50th-anniversary commemorations. (Midpoint) NASA Ames Astrogram vol. 47 no. 9 (September 2005) — reports that Delbert E. Philpott was among ten American veterans invited to the May 9, 2005 Moscow Victory Day state dinner, seated at the “Presidents’ Table” with U.S. President George W. Bush, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and First Lady Laura Bush. This illustrates that even a decade after Kirschenbaum’s initial 1995 note to Torgau, Philpott’s identification remained firmly embedded in official and commemorative circles. (NASA Ames Astrogram PDF) Elbe Day 1945–2020 (Torgau: City of Torgau / DIZ Torgau, 2020), which includes the bilingual chapter “Bernard Kirschenbaum – Two Photos” identifying Private First Class Bernard E. Kirschenbaum as the American soldier “second from the left” in the famous staged photo (DNB IDs 121817837X / 1218178485).


Together these sources demonstrate the historical transition from Philpott’s inclusion in Torgau’s commemorative culture (1995; reinforced by his 2005 state-level recognition) to the formal acknowledgment of Kirschenbaum by DIZ Torgau in 2020. These materials are reliable, published, and archived, and will be integrated into the article after the GA review concludes unless the reviewer advises otherwise Milwaukee911 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor’s note: Added documentation of additional published sources (1995 Torgau volume; 2005 NASA Ames Astrogram; 2020 DIZ Torgau correction) for reviewer reference.

  1. ^ [[#CITEREF|]].