Talk:2025 St. Louis tornado - Wikipedia - Recent changes [en]

:NWS St. Louis put out an ArcGIS summary on the tornado and it states that this tornado killed 4, not 5. Plus, if you look at where Juan died, you'll see that it was WAY outside the path of this tornado. [[User:ChessEric|<span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: #177245; color: #ffffff;">'''Chess'''</span>]][[User talk:ChessEric|<span style="color: #177245">'''Eric'''</span>]] 17:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

:NWS St. Louis put out an ArcGIS summary on the tornado and it states that this tornado killed 4, not 5. Plus, if you look at where Juan died, you'll see that it was WAY outside the path of this tornado. [[User:ChessEric|<span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: #177245; color: #ffffff;">'''Chess'''</span>]][[User talk:ChessEric|<span style="color: #177245">'''Eric'''</span>]] 17:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

::ChessEric, while I appreciate your work trying to keep articles factual, I would greatly appreciate if, when changing facts that ''contradict'' existing sources, you have a sufficient explanation to begin with for a summary and a source to back up the change. Edit summaries such as [[Special:Diff/1298043167|"This death was nowhere near the damage path of the tornado; please pay attention."]] are perceived, by me at least, to be calls to synthesize facts instead of finding them in reliable sources; in addition, I believe the best way to handle a fact correction would be to add the corrected fact as a note, acknowledging the original and inaccurate report, instead of just scrubbing it from the article. Most readers aren't going to look to the talk page or edit history to find the sources for these facts, and may even see the need to revert back to the previous inaccurate revision if it isn't acknowledged. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 20:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

::ChessEric, while I appreciate your work trying to keep articles factual, I would greatly appreciate if, when changing facts that ''contradict'' existing sources, you have a sufficient explanation to begin with for a summary and a source to back up the change. Edit summaries such as [[Special:Diff/1298043167|"This death was nowhere near the damage path of the tornado; please pay attention."]] or [[Special:Diff/1299233681|"It was 4."]] are perceived, by me at least, to be calls to synthesize facts instead of finding them in reliable sources; in addition, I believe the best way to handle a fact correction would be to add the corrected fact as a note, acknowledging the original and inaccurate report, instead of just scrubbing it from the article. Most readers aren't going to look to the talk page or edit history to find the sources for these facts, and may even see the need to revert back to the previous inaccurate revision if it isn't acknowledged. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 20:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)