One thing that surprises writers who contribute to books I'm editing is it is not uncommon to get a question about something in their story. It might be about the Pony Express actually going someplace or it could be about firearms. I try and keep things as accurate as I can. I think the fantasy or horror works better when the other aspects of the story are realistic. I recently had someone who made certain assertions about Little Bighorn that simply weren't true. To my surprise, he sent me some article about the famous battle. What was odd was he remained adamant that things happened that simply did not--and his article did not make the claims he was. So, I thanked him for his submission and rejected the story.
That is quite rare. Usually inconsistencies on fact can be resolved. But not that time. I don't know everything, nor would I want to. But I do wonder why someone would argue over trivial points. On the other hand, many years ago I put a reference to the Epitaph in my novel The Two Devils. I consider that the coolest name for a newspaper in the history of the world. Well, the editor changed it to newspaper. Just newspaper. I was quite angry over that. I'm still mad about it a decade later. So, I have been on both sides of these things. But, at the end of the day, someone needs to make a decision and that is usually the editor..
So then, the angry writer submits another story. And it had historical problems as well. What to do? It will be rejected without any comment from me.