Talk:6th Summit of the Americas

A fact from 6th Summit of the Americas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the 6th Summit of the Americas was boycotted by Presidents Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/6th Summit of the Americas.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. South America: Argentina / Bolivia / Brazil / Chile / Colombia / Ecuador / Guyana / Paraguay / Peru / Suriname / Uruguay / Venezuela / French Guiana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Bolivia (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Brazil (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Chile (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Colombia (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Ecuador (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Guyana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Paraguay (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peru (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Suriname (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Uruguay (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the French Guiana work group (assessed as Low-importance). Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This sentence seems to be incorrect and is contradicted elsewhere Though Colombian police said that five people were involved, a preliminary investigation by the United States Southern Command[26] suggested that 11 people could have been involved.

There were both Military and Secret Service personnel involved. USSC reported on just the military personnel. A separate investigation occurred for the Secret Service.

At some point, the list of the summits in the Overview section will be considered redundant. There is a navbox at the bottom of the page; and it presents similar data in an abbreviated format. --Tenmei (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:6th Summit of the Americas.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:6th Summit of the Americas.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd line of the article in the opening para is regarding how the US should pay attention to Latin America and not Af/Pak. Is this really the central/key theme of the entire summit? I fail to see how this quote should be placed right up there instead of in the reactions section along with the other quotes or in the agenda section if the summit was really about US paying attention to Latin America. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its the host presidents opening statement, but feel free to move it to the agenda somewhere. Or discussions even?Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Moved it to agenda rather than discussions, since it was said before the summit and not during (as mentioned in source). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Secret Service sex scandal become a new article. I think it should. There is plenty of information about the lead woman, who had overnight sex, has a 9 year old son, and whom was paid $225. It is not fair to the summit article to laden it with sexual details. Auchansa (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to see any long-term effects. Right now, it is newsworthy, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Time will tell of its lasting notability. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter should mention whether those Secret Service agents were on duty at the time and whether they were trying to refund the bills for prostitutes as travel expenses. Otherwise I do not understand why is there so much fuss about the thing. --Alvin-cs ✉ 22:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]