Talk:2011 NATO attack in Pakistan/Archives/2016/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Fighter jet(s)
I assume the information added here is correct, this should also be added to the three other instances of the "unknown number" of fighter jets occurring in the article (lead, a caption and the infobox). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I was just re-reading the report to make sure, and to be completely accurate, there were TWO F-15's in the sky at the time supporting the initial operation (the activity before the checkpoint attack), but as for the activity DURING the checkpoint attack, only one F-15 was used to fly fairly low and drop flares to let the enemy know they had superior air control in hopes of deterring an escalation by the enemy. It's unlikely the enemy knew there was a second F-15 up there, but according to the report, there WERE two of them.jlcoving (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't add it to other occurrences because the report was not opening at my end. If that is so, "two" is the right number to be mentioned. If you want to explain this detail, a footnote will be a good idea (which can also then say that until investigations the number was unknown). Please add it to the Incident section as well as the other three occurrences mentioned above. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, I think I've updated all the places it was mentioned now. It seems I'm having trouble getting the infobox part to display correctly though?jlcoving (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, I think I've updated all the places it was mentioned now. It seems I'm having trouble getting the infobox part to display correctly though?jlcoving (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't add it to other occurrences because the report was not opening at my end. If that is so, "two" is the right number to be mentioned. If you want to explain this detail, a footnote will be a good idea (which can also then say that until investigations the number was unknown). Please add it to the Incident section as well as the other three occurrences mentioned above. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)