The casualty figures were corrected. Maxx786 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem with the casualty figures should be solved next time from the chronology. Discussion can be held at the article's talk, please make sure that the figures are per chronology. How you can judge that Tribune is not a credible source? If it wasn't 218, then it was 215. So, 241-3=238; because on 17 June, a total of 25+3 militants were killed. Regards. Faizan 07:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The figures provided by ISPR are considered most reliable. If you put chronology from different newspapers (which get the figure from different sources), it is going to vary. (See: Dawn gives figure of 232). For most media outlets like PTI, ISPR remains the best source.
Today in the morning, The News as well as Geo News reported 50 militants killed citing 'sources', AFP reported 20 fatalities citing a 'security official". But ISPR confirmed only 12 militant fatalities. You can add all militant deaths from ISPR press releases from 15 to 20 June which will give you the figure of 235 + 12 = 247 .. Cheers .. Maxx786 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree that different sources are giving different death toll. But the point that I raised was that the figures that you unilaterally put in the info-box without updating the chronology section may confuse the readers. When they will add up the figures, the answer will be 3 more than the figures given in the infobox, eh? So please update the chronology section when updating the infobox. Now I am confused that at which point in the chronology, the figures need to amended. Anyway, I am having a look at all ISPR press releases. Do amend the chronology figures when you update the infobox. Faizan 17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the chronology section as per ISPR press releases. The problem before was the use of unofficial problematic sources. Faizan 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The casualty figures come out to be 247, right! Thanks. Faizan 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.