Talk:Stars and Stripes (newspaper)

message: Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up?
Hi—
I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. 
A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up).
I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years).
If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks.
Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: 
+49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006
Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this:  
011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006
Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. 
For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news.
Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be. 
 
Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to:
If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:
* Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
* Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
* An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
* I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.
I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news.
--
The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate Denies General Officer Promotion 

message: This newspaper is not just a wartime entity. This should be mentioned. It is published in Europe and Pacific editions and still exists today. It's the main newspaper on the different installations. Mike H 03:04, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
===Copyright Status===
What is the copyright status for media and images from Stars and Stripes?
It seems likely that there is a different answer for the modern Stars and Stripes than for the World War II Stars & Stripes.
WWII Stars and Stripes
The masthead of the WWII Stars and Stripes labeled it "Daily Newspaper of U. S. Armed Forces in the European Theater of Operations". There was no statement of copyright. In a box, usually on page 2, it further stated "Printed at the New York Herald for the U.S. armed forces under auspices of the Information and Education Division, Special and Informational services, ETOUSA. Contents passed by the U.S. Army and Navy censors."
So there was no doubt in World War II that Stars and Stripes was a publication of the U.S.Army and thus a government publication. Since all government publications cannot be copyrighted and are in the public domain, the WWII Stars and Stripes are in the public domain.
Modern Stars and Stripes
The modern Stars and Stripes is a separate entity, without editorial control by the U.S. Army. The website does claim copyright. This is a separate issue from the WWII Stars and Stripes copyright.
General Discussion without consideration of Differences of WWII and Modern  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwjo (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright notice is here; it makes it pretty clear that the contents are fully copyrighted and not in the public domain. —Angr 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make it so.  There is no way that Stars and Stripes copyright claims will hold-up in court.  They are a government work despite their independent editorialization they claim they have.  Therefore, besides some of their other works such as AP reprints and some photos, all work in Stars and Stripes is copyright-free and in the public domain.  Simply accepting their claims that they're not in the public domain would be like accepting claims from Congress that their Bills are copyrighted because they say they are and we can't republish them without their permission.  It goes against the very reason why government works are not allowed to have copyright. AstralisLux (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  It seems that the newspaper is "authorized" by the DoD, but it doesn't qualitfy as "work of the government."  I've erred on the side of caution thus far, so I don't think I need to hunt down any articles or images... Nimur 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, simply because a government official claims they don't qualify as a work of the government when their entire apparatus is funded, authorized, and provided overight by the US government doesn't make it so. AstralisLux (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Just a quick note; the license on the image was incorrectly changed to a PD license after a warning from BetacommandBot, so per the disclaimer on the website I've changed it back to a copyright notice and added a fair use rationale per WP:NFC.  In addition, since the image was a little too large to qualify for the "minimal extent of use" criteria of WP:NFCC, I tagged it with  and it was subsequently resized by User:Melesse. --jonny-mt 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have nothing to worry about.  Besides a few exceptions from works by the AP and other organizations republished in Stars and Stripes, all content otherwise in the publication is in the public domain as government works. AstralisLux (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if the above editors read the S&S, but many articles currently are from commercial news services as per the byline attributions at the head of the articles. That content would have copyright protection in my understanding.--TGC55 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointless discussion, so far. All that's needed is documentation of their funding or charter, and the above PD_USGov template.Sadsaque (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is the copyright status for media and images from Stars and Stripes?
It seems likely that there is a different answer for the modern Stars and Stripes than for the World War II Stars & Stripes.
WWII Stars and Stripes
The masthead of the WWII Stars and Stripes labeled it "Daily Newspaper of U. S. Armed Forces in the European Theater of Operations". There was no statement of copyright. In a box, usually on page 2, it further stated "Printed at the New York Herald for the U.S. armed forces under auspices of the Information and Education Division, Special and Informational services, ETOUSA. Contents passed by the U.S. Army and Navy censors."
So there was no doubt in World War II that Stars and Stripes was a publication of the U.S.Army and thus a government publication. Since all government publications cannot be copyrighted and are in the public domain, the WWII Stars and Stripes are in the public domain.
Modern Stars and Stripes
The modern Stars and Stripes is a separate entity, without editorial control by the U.S. Army. The website does claim copyright. This is a separate issue from the WWII Stars and Stripes copyright.
General Discussion without consideration of Differences of WWII and Modern  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwjo (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright notice is here; it makes it pretty clear that the contents are fully copyrighted and not in the public domain. —Angr 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make it so.  There is no way that Stars and Stripes copyright claims will hold-up in court.  They are a government work despite their independent editorialization they claim they have.  Therefore, besides some of their other works such as AP reprints and some photos, all work in Stars and Stripes is copyright-free and in the public domain.  Simply accepting their claims that they're not in the public domain would be like accepting claims from Congress that their Bills are copyrighted because they say they are and we can't republish them without their permission.  It goes against the very reason why government works are not allowed to have copyright. AstralisLux (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  It seems that the newspaper is "authorized" by the DoD, but it doesn't qualitfy as "work of the government."  I've erred on the side of caution thus far, so I don't think I need to hunt down any articles or images... Nimur 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, simply because a government official claims they don't qualify as a work of the government when their entire apparatus is funded, authorized, and provided overight by the US government doesn't make it so. AstralisLux (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Just a quick note; the license on the image was incorrectly changed to a PD license after a warning from BetacommandBot, so per the disclaimer on the website I've changed it back to a copyright notice and added a fair use rationale per WP:NFC.  In addition, since the image was a little too large to qualify for the "minimal extent of use" criteria of WP:NFCC, I tagged it with  and it was subsequently resized by User:Melesse. --jonny-mt 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have nothing to worry about.  Besides a few exceptions from works by the AP and other organizations republished in Stars and Stripes, all content otherwise in the publication is in the public domain as government works. AstralisLux (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if the above editors read the S&S, but many articles currently are from commercial news services as per the byline attributions at the head of the articles. That content would have copyright protection in my understanding.--TGC55 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointless discussion, so far. All that's needed is documentation of their funding or charter, and the above PD_USGov template.Sadsaque (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Status

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.starsandstripesmuseumlibrary.org/welcome.html
** In Stars and Stripes (newspaper) on 2007-06-03 14:32:55, 404 Not Found
** In Stars and Stripes (newspaper) on 2007-06-10 16:31:38, 404 Not Found
--Stwalkerbot 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: :Image:Stars and Stripes front page.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. 
In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stars and Stripes front page.jpg

message: Spanky, let's try this again. I'll check on the accreditation thing and you look into the objectivity aspects. I think the key issue is the fact that civilian management self censors the paper. Guess we'll find out. Darren Realreporterman (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: accreditation?

message: Dar: Yeah, plus the world believes the American press is straight-up censored (at least by current administration, that could change soon), which is the biggest croc on the table. It would be nice to straighten out this paper since it's a bit of an icon. Like I said in the Amazon post, a bunch of bulldog civilian-sector reporters tried to convince Stripes editorial leadership as far back as 2003 that they should expand into 48-contiguous circulation, use stringers, that sort of thing to try to generate a profit. Anything is better than direct DoD funding. Ah well ... Spanky Dutifully (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: world thinks American press is censored, crocodile

message: Hey Darren, do you know if the current ombudsman has ever sided with a Stripes reader on an issue? Maybe someone should ask him to list all the times in which he corrected the paper on an obvious blunder, because I don't think he ever has.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutifully (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: think the ombudsman will write a full-page rationalization?

message: Spanky, I believe he's Stripes' acting ombudsman, probably because they can't find anyone who wants to be hired as the actual ombudsman; plausible deniability, if you will.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realreporterman (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "acting" ombudsman, I believe ...

message: At least the Command Information Newspaper fact stayed up there for 2 months. That's the first free speech article I've seen written by a Stripes reporter in at least a quarter century. Juergensand (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool: 2 months of freedom of the press ...

message: Looking for documentation on the following:
- DODDS: worse than the worst public school system.
- Asbestos removal in overseas military buildings (status).
- Stripes does stories concerning service member gambling problems in Korea and Germany, but they don't ask specific questions about Joint Ethics Regulations (Stripes documents inordinate amount of money generated by MWR-facility slot machines; is it as simplistic as tying the two stories together?).
User:Gamblindude|Gamblindude]] (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gambling, DODDS, Asbestos ...

message: Shouldn't there be a mention of the Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism granted in 2001 to editor David Offer for resigning due to censorship? GreenReaper (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Payne Award

message: In the paragraph about "Stripes Central" the list of current reporters is out of date, Jeff Schogol is no longer with S&S, but with the Army Times publishing group (Gannett).--TGC55 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Current" section is out of date

message: A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:BennyGoodman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  Wikiacc (¶) 20:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:BennyGoodman.jpg listed for discussion 

message: You might consider adding two-time Pulitzer-winner Bill Mauldin and Vice-President Al Gore to this section.Spoonpassport (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable former staffers 

message: It seems like Linda Tripp's various attempts to sue Stars and Stripes would be a valuable addition to this page. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121970&page=1
Spoonpassport (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linda Tripp