Talk:Radschlepper Ost: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

I’ve noticed that you reverted my changed to this article why the comment “why not both?”
The file Skoda File:Skoda Rad Schlepper 1944 (12169501973).jpg is a photo of a 1:43 scale model, not an actual vehicle. As such, it’s not historically accurate. Copying @RomanM82:, who uploaded that file to Wikimedia Commons.

Surfingslovak (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at Talk:Radschlepper Ost, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t reverted your change. I think your addition of this image was a good improvement to it. However we also have the model image, and that has the advantage that it’s from a better angle. Which leaves us with several questions:

• Are images of models ‘banned’ ? They might well be deprecated if we have plenty to chose from, but there’s only one Radschlepper photographed on Commons. So why not use the model photo? Is it in some way inaccurate? Inaccurate in a way that can be seen in this photo?
• What’s the provenance of the new photo? Is it a colorisation, even an AI colorisation? I’m familiar with this vehicle in Normandy and there are several photos of it circulating for years (File:Porsche Type 175 (Škoda RSO) BW.webp for one), but this is the first one I’ve seen in colour. So not only was a US photographer there, but they were carrying two rolls of film? Possible, but not commonplace. So was it colorised? And are we then to become dogmatic over “colorisation is OK, but models are OUT!”
• If we were to use both photos, then which order should they be in? Obviously I favour this way, but I’m not strongly attached to it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it was me who added File:Porsche Type 175 (Škoda RSO) BW.webp to Commons the other day. Along with File:Porsche Type 175.webp. I found it rather surprising that an encyclopedia who prides itself on accuracy would display a scale model when actual historically accurate photos are available. I have to assume that it’s likely because of unclear authorship and licensing terms.

The oldest copy of File:Porsche Type 175.webp I could find was eight years old. It was already colorized. Although AI colorization became available about ten years ago, it was much less common. I think our time would be better spent sourcing a suitable historical image that could be safely uploaded to Commons. I searched both US and German government archives, but couldn’t find anything. A quality source would be better than something floating on the web.

Surfingslovak (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book copy of it, black and white, that’s about 40 years old. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional context; it is invaluable. I just realized something: the photos were apparently shot initially in color by Frank Scherschel for LIFE magazine. I incorrectly assumed that they were shot by a military photographer and, as such, were in the public domain. I will have to schedule the two photos I’ve uploaded to Commons for deletion since they are covered by copyright. What tipped me off was a color version of the photo I’ve uploaded with a Getty watermark.

“But in color photos taken before and after the invasion, LIFE magazine’s Frank Scherschel captured countless other, lesser-known scenes from the run-up to the D-Day and the heady weeks after: American troops training in small English towns; the French countryside, startingly lush after the spectral landscape of the beachheads; the reception GIs enjoyed en route to the capital; the jubilant liberation of Paris itself.”

Regarding your other question, let me reiterate that in historical articles, Wikipedia prefers authentic historical images over models because it aligns with the platform’s core mission of providing verifiable, factual information. Historical artifacts like contemporary portraits or photographs are primary source material, whereas scale models are interpretations or representations created much later.

Since both of the images I sourced are out of question, we are back to square one, and the scale model will have to do for now.

Surfingslovak (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given how rare photos of the Radschlepper Ost are, it would be justifiable to upload one of these here (not Commons) under WP:NFCC.

Of course WP prefers an original photo to a photo of a model. But we also have to make do with what we have. Even with these other two images, I think we’re still reduced to that sort of level here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s worth considering. I reviewed the photos in LIFE’s Shutterstock collection taken in Normandy between June and September 1944, and don’t see any Radschlepper photos on there. Getty no longer lists Frank Scherschel‘s collection. He passed away in 1981. As far as I can tell, Time Life owns all his images, and you cannot license them elsewhere. His individual copyright would expire in 2051. That said, I don’t think that anyone would object since they are not in any active photo collection. LIFE’s photo licensing department can be reached at copyright@life.com. Surfingslovak (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up with Time Life and heard back. They referred me to Shutterstock. One of their licensing agents uploaded the original image to Time Life collection and forwarded me a link. The digitized image has a resolution of 5361 × 3618 pixels and is in color. Unfortunately, Shutterstock’s licensing terms are not compatible with Wikimedia’s licensing requirements. Editorial rights to the image were quoted at $199. Surfingslovak (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]