User talk:PakistinianHurricane
Heads up regarding your recent edits[edit]
Hi there. Regarding this edit you made, you changed the death toll from 2,000 to 22,000 without adding a source, saying that was somehow a fix. Do you have a citation for that claim? I am aware that the 1881 Haiphong typhoon mentions 20,000 deaths in the Philippines, but the source there says 20,000 casualties, which doesn't mean the same thing as a confirmed fatality, and it could refer to the old outdated death toll for the Haiphong typhoon, which used to be a lot higher, until modern researchers realized that the initial report was translated incorrectly. I see you've also made a lot of other edits to natural disaster pages. You say in this edit that you are citing the other pages for making your edits, but that is wrong. You shouldn't copy other Wikipedia pages, unless perhaps you're copying a source from another article. A lot of Wikipedia articles are unsourced, out of date, or potentially factually incorrect, so you shouldn't be using that as a basis for changing other pages. So in the future, please also include reliable sources in your edits, when you make changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah ok that's fair. I was just trying to clean up this whole mess, since it's getting seriously annoying. And I figured I might as well try, since no one else was seemingly. PakistinianHurricane (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah also, the other thing confusing me was that for the deadliest natural disasters list, most entries on that list did not feature additional sources, so I thought I didn't neccesarily have to. I did note that some did, but I figured that if most other people presumably had not (it could've been one person who did that), then using the article itself as a source was valid. PakistinianHurricane (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yea, that's been a problem on Wikipedia for a while, people adding entries without sources, or those sources relying on Wikipedia, perhaps relying on outdated or incorrect sources (like the 1881 Haiphong typhoon). I tried my best to get the deadliest tropical cyclones organized on the page List of the deadliest tropical cyclones, which by and large is sourced, although there are a few entries there that I couldn't find reliable sources. Long term, I'd love if Wikipedia had all of these lists organized and properly cited, which is why I think we need a bunch more articles. For instance, I think that every major populated area should have its own list for tropical cyclones. I see your user name mentions Pakistan. Did you know that there is a List of tropical cyclones in Pakistan? The deadlist storm there, based on Wikipedia, was 1999 Pakistan cyclone, which apparently killed 6,400 people, but there isn't a good reliable source for it. The one linked is for a newspaper that doesn't even mention the stormn, while the article for it doesn't have a reliable source for 6,400, just a USA today article mentioning the death toll of 400, plus 6,000 people potentially being missing. This is rather common on Wikipedia, where it seems like there is an accepted death toll, especially for an article that looks reasonably well written and cited, but there isn't a good source for it. And this is only one article. It's quite an undertaking trying to figure out all of these death tolls for these natural disasters, and there isn't a great way of doing it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah also, the other thing confusing me was that for the deadliest natural disasters list, most entries on that list did not feature additional sources, so I thought I didn't neccesarily have to. I did note that some did, but I figured that if most other people presumably had not (it could've been one person who did that), then using the article itself as a source was valid. PakistinianHurricane (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)