Talk:State Partnership Program
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plagiarized section
[edit]This part of the intro:
The program links National Guard units of U.S. States with partner countries around the world for the purpose of supporting the security cooperation objectives of the geographic Combatant Commands (CCMDs). By linking U.S. states with designated partner countries, the SPP aims to promote access, enhance military capabilities, improve interoperability and enhance the principles of responsible governance.[4] Furthermore, the SPP aims to support several areas of potential interest to the US Congress, such as: helping prevent failed states and creating stable regions improving the capabilities of partner nations to protect their citizens strengthening relationships to facilitate access and interoperability improving cultural awareness and skills among U.S. military personnel fostering the integration of reserve and active component forces into a "total force"
was lifted nearly word-for-word fom Joint Task Force Arizona. It appears a lot among the government sites on on the JPP. If they have done it, why are we doing it? I'm going to get this out of here in favor of the security cooperation objectives, which I will be working on. This article is sort of between legitimacies. If we had the copyright permission from the DoD we could just go ahead and copy the whole article, giving credit to the DoD. I don't see the point of that at all, as we could just as well list it in Wikisource. The second legitimacy would be not to copy it at all but to make small quotes for educational purposes. What is done here is to copy much of it without attribution and give some other source than the one from which it came. I don't think so, so I'm going to fix it or just take it away.Botteville (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Table of relationships
[edit]The spacing of the table does not make much sense to me. It looks terrible. There is no alignment by date. Only EUCOM partnerships have any articles. I think the spacing might have been designed to fit some fragile scheme of pictures, which was disrupted the moment any changes were made. So, instead of it I propose a numbered section for each region with a bulleted list of relationships for each region, to be arranged by date. Then you have a nice series of look-up blocks.Botteville (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Copy of previous table
[edit]Here is a copy of the previous table if anyone wants it. I think the blocks certainly look better and the arrangement by date gives order to it.____
Note: USNORTHCOM currently maintains one SPP relationship; Rhode Island / Bahamas (2005)
| USEUCOM | USSOUTHCOM | USAFRICOM | USPACOM | USCENTCOM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|