This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Weather This page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather

Can these be added to the list? They're not reliable for US severe weather, as they usually parrot warnings such as tornado emergencies within minutes of them being issued without any critical commentary, and everything else seems to be just parroting AP. In both cases, a primary source should be used. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably not reliable for both. Unless they are pertaining to the weather in India or elsewhere in Asia. Definitely not reliable for America use the AP source they're parroting instead. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would be the equivalent of me citing an article "from" KTUU on Hurricane Foo making landfall in Florida, and KTUU likely parroting the AP. I'll hunt down said AP article instead. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

A few sources not talked about, which we can discuss as a project. ^EF⁵ 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I say case-by-case. All tornadoes are cited to either TPG, DAT, StormData or additional sources that are almost always (if not always) reliable. The one exception to this are a few tornadoes in Asia they've mapped where they use radar data to estimate the tornado's track (obviously WP:OR). I think it depends on which tornado track you're using it to cite, but I wouldn't say flat-out GUNREL. ^EF⁵ 21:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I've cited Tornado Archive before. For tornadoes in the United States, it's likely reliable, elsewhere on a case by case basis. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I think it's best to not directly use them as a source. They can be good for finding sources, but on its own I don't think it should be trusted. My biggest issue with it is South America, which has loads of WP:OR and a lot of mistakes. Their primary source for the majority the entire continent is a Google Maps project that says that it adds information from (among others) Wikipedia, forums, and reports sent in from anyone. Yobatna (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I usually only use Tornado Archive for state summaries (eg: the Tornadoes in West Virginia article I created last year). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  And by that, only for the overall numbers of tornadoes. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Additional considerations apply as they cite reliable sources, however their sources should be used where possible. Departure– (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • Generally reliable for USA tornadoes as I believe they meet the bar to be a reliable tertiary source, but I'm struggling to see why we would use TornadoArchive instead of the source itself (e.g. Grazulis, NWS). Case-by-case for tornadoes outside of the USA per concerns found before.

  WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @Wildfireupdateman, I use it for the number of tornadoes that way I don't have to try to cite dozens/hundreds of NCEI pages. But I cite said NCEI pages/Storm Data on the individual tornado entries. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  UPDATE: it would appear as if the hosting server has taken down Tornado Archive, as they've replaced it with a hosting company message saying that the website is unavailable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Based on data from the Internet Archive, it looks like tornadoarchive.com got took down sometime in September or October of 2025. It is possible that they've rebranded or moved to a different URL, but if so, I don't know which. They originally had a landing page with their logo saying it was "not accessible via this address" on October 10, 2025. As of January 2026, the landing page now has the logo of a web hosting company. Based on their pleas for donations in the archives, I suspect that they weren't able to afford the costs to host the site, and I suspect the hosting company repossessed the website address. Though I don't know that with absolute certainty. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricane Clyde: it's down for maintenance, not inability to pay for costs or anything. ^EF⁵ 14:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Since October? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, it went down on January 10th. Prior to that it's been fine; I've used it as recent as January 1. ^EF⁵ 15:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@EF5, @Quxyz, it has been down multiple times then. Because according to the Wayback Machine, it has been down since October. Though it is likely to be because of poor sampling, only two archives in October and November. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of why it happened. It doesn't change the fact that the site is still down no matter what. And evidently, it's been a pattern of it going down multiple times in the last few months. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's still giving a 503 error. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricane Clyde: see this; they just moved their host. Happens pretty often. ^EF⁵ 17:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well... that explains a lot. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding him due to his known anti-climate change views. Does not include stuff written by him in his duties as a meteorologist; obviously that will be reliable. ^EF⁵ 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say case by case. If it pertains to the weather in Alabama, it might be reliable, if posted via a WBMA account. Outside of Alabama, probably unreliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mostly reliable for anything not pertaining to climate change. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Especially if pertaining to Alabama. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Reliable for anything not mentioning climate change - Look, we all love Spann. Great guy and has been in the business since the 1970s. If I would to go anyone about weather info, it'd be him. However, he does maintain a pro-religious view on climate change which is blatantly inaccurate, so I will say that he shouldn't be used for anything related to climate change. I believe he was the first "certified meteorologist" from the AMS, although I'm not completely sure. His expertise definitely outweighs a relatively minor viewpoint, in my opinion. ^EF⁵ 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Generally unreliable. Barring his factually questionable views, he holds no apparent qualifications for making claims. Claims made by him that are found in sources with editorial standards, for instance the TV station he is affiliated with, appear reliable. Do we have any proof he has his TV station repeating his anti-climate change views? Departure– (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Subject Matter Expert - Reliable for the field of broadcast meteorology. Case-by-case for most other weather topics. GUNREL for climate change topic.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why is he considered a subject matter expert? He was a broadcast meteorologist and I don't see any other qualifications beyond that. His tenure may be long and include the Super Outbreak but I can't see anyone calling him an expert at anything beyond the act of broadcast meteorology itself. Departure– (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Departure–, he has a masters in journalism from Columbia. Also, good to note that he's the 33rd "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" from AMS, a reliable and academic source. Apparently, he's also won an Emmy, which I just found out about! — ^EF⁵ 23:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

So he's a subject matter in broadcast meteorology. I don't see how he's a reliable source for other aspects of meteorology, though. Departure– (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's what I meant, hence why I say case by case for other weather topics and unreliable for climate change. Sorry if I was unclear in my statement. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Unreliable for WX due to the outcome of a WP:RSN discussion. No comment on engineering, which is out-of-scope for this project. ^EF⁵ 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'm going to second this - generally unreliable per the RSP discussion. I'd argue they're also unreliable for engineering topics. Departure– (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Small note for EF5, since this will be a source list for weather articles in general, including individual tornado/tornado outbreaks, and lists like List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes, ect.., I believe his engineering topics can be discussed here as well, since this could be provided to new editors as "This is a list of good and bad sources you can reference when creating an article". If a split consensus forms (example: unreliable for meteorology but reliable for engineering), then he can easily be split in the table. WP:RSP does this all the time, with a good example being WP:FORBES (generally reliable) and WP:FORBESCON (Forbes.com - Generally unreliable). I will comment on the reliability later. I just wanted to make that note for EF5 and others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In that case, unreliable for engineering too, again as per the RSN. — ^EF⁵ 22:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note that this YouTuber does have a Wikipedia account, so they could probably answer questions. ^EF⁵ 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wikiwillz: courtesy ping WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have to say unreliable. Sorry @Wikiwillz. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://tenor.com/view/baby-seal-sad-cry-meme-seal-gif-19608082 Wikiwillz (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Unreliable - no evidence this YouTuber has qualifications that would make them a subject expert, at least from what I've found. ^EF⁵ 01:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
• I would consider my own content generally unreliable except under special cases, or if I bring or cite an expert, per WP:RS. My videos (sadly) are not peer-reviewed or independently fact checked. Unless we take a lot of weight from the bit "a track record in journalism/research on the topic is ideal." which could arguably be used for my established research in videos. But that's pushing it. Wikiwillz (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Case-by-case because some reliable meteorologists do use this weather blog to relay information, including James Spann, who is being discussed above. While it is a WP:SPS, I don't see how this differs from meteorologists writing about their experience in a news article. This should be considered unreliable if the post is by someone not a meteorologist, as they do not meet the subject expert guidelines. ^EF⁵ 22:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally unreliable - This is the guy that said there would be over 200 tornadoes on March 15, 2025; there were only about 63. He is known for his aggressive style of "hypecasting" and besides driving into tornadoes doesn't contribute much. ^EF⁵ 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'd say ditto there. He also popularized the term "gorilla hail" in the 2020s as well. The hypercasting falls in line with Accuweather's damage estimates (see Mt section on that). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally unreliable - Yep, Timmer's unfortunately known to overhype and overreact to upcoming and ongoing tornado and severe weather outbreaks. While he does conduct research into tornadoes (including this), other than that, I agree with EF5's statement that he is basically "hypecasting" most times. ~ Tails Wx 12:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Generally reliable as a subject matter expert on topics relating to storm chasing and mesoscale meteorology. Generally unreliable for forecasting. Let's remember that Reed Timmer has a PhD and is the most notorious storm chaser of the contemporary era. I don't see how any type of forecast not by the SPC or other institutions would be reliable but Timmer easily seems good for anything else. Forecasting is a moot point anyway because Wikipedia is not a weather forecasting services and we don't really need these types of claims, reliable or not, in most cases. Departure– (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Generally reliable — Specifically in regards to agricultural flooding (his primary area of expertise) and storm chasing. Generally unreliable with regards to everything else, including forecasts, and tornado intensity, as he is known to overhype on social media. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I know I am months late on this, but recently found the discussion again. I concur with the idea, generally reliable as a storm chaser. Generally unreliable as a forecaster. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Didn't realize i had already posted on this section. I am going to cross out one of those. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Not going to be able to cross it out, too many bugs. Treat this as my main comment. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 07:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note that there is a COI with the person who started this page. ^EF⁵ 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know who added the above comment. But YouTube accounts are (no offense intended) typically unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Now I could be wrong, but Ryan Hall seems to fall into the "self published" category. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

YouTube is a WP:SPS, and those are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is why he's here. ^EF⁵ 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, I personally think that one falls into the "self published" and "generally unreliable" category (at least by WP standards). I wouldn't lean on Ryan Hall to be my first choice in a citation, I'd wait for a more reliable source (eg. The AP or the National Weather Service). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hurricane Clyde, this is overall, not immediate citations. — ^EF⁵ 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Overall, probably case by case, but still leaning towards unreliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comment - @WeatherWriter: do you know what qualifications Ryan holds, i.e. degree and college? I thought I saw something on a WeatherBrains episode in 2022 about him switching his major halfway through. — ^EF⁵ 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

My comment was lost in an edit conflict, but generally unreliable for anything not directly related to his own work or to the Y'all Squad. Forecasts especially, per all above. Departure– (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know for sure whether or not he has a meteorology degree. I know he interned at WYMT for a short time. IMO, it's just as unreliable as me launching a (hypothetical) "Hurricane Clyde Weather Channel" on YouTube and then trying to cite myself on Wikipedia. Or creating a website titled "hurricaneclydewx.com" (again hypothetical, none of these sites actually exist) and then citing my hypothetical website on Wikipedia. Does anyone see my point? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally unreliable for forecasts, which have a history of being fear-mongered and overhyped. Just take a look at some of the videos he's posted and every single one says something along the lines of "THIS IS DANGEROUS!" or "RARE SETUP!"; all buzzwords. ^EF⁵ 22:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I've seen them. He uses extensive sensationalism. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Hurricane Clyde, this Reddit post always gives me a chuckle. — ^EF⁵ 22:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Lots of buzzwords in that reddit. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adding this section here, since Ryan Hall's videos are different from the non-profit organization he runs, The Y'all Squad (Website & YouTube), which is a citation on some articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say maybe case by case on that. Reliable if it's them saying they're going somewhere to assist. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

For self-descriptions, they can be reliable in some cases per WP:PRIMARY. However, I wouldn't trust them to for any extraordinary claims beyond the scope of the Y'all Squad as an organization. Departure– (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The question I would ask is how reliable would the source be for mentions of them on, for example Tornado outbreak and floods of April 2–7, 2025#Relief efforts, where a post from The Y'all Squad, is used to source how much where they were going to aid. Thankfully, a few other times The Y'all Squad is mentioned in articles, actual RS are mentioning them, so their own posts aren't needed: Greenfield tornado#Aftermath & 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Aftermath are examples of that. For a hypothetical example, say The Y'all Squad video of their aid for the 2024 Columbia tornado. Would that video be reliable enough to source a sentence like "The Y'all Squad gave at least $30,000 to victims of the tornado". Based on the three instances I know of (all linked above) where The Y'all Squad is mentioned/sourced, it appears to all be related to X dollars of aid went to X location in the aftermath of X storm. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@WeatherWriter, in that context, I think it would be marginally reliable. However, as mentioned above, that is the only context where I think it would be even remotely reliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Eh, case-by-case per Departure. I don't know why they'd ever need to be cited anyway. — ^EF⁵ 20:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally unreliable - Basically a carbon-copy of Ryan's method. ^EF⁵ 22:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Generally unreliable Recently received a bachelor's in meteorology, but his personal YouTube channel doesn't have any claims to be made except for forecasting, "nowcasting" (which can be very unreliable), and parroting claims from actual reliable sources. He doesn't appear to bring anything new to the table besides that which he is not qualified to say. Departure– (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Ditto per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  The sensationalism that Max Velocity uses is also cited in the Reddit post that @EF5 linked in the Ryan Hall Y'all section. The post said "looking at you max velocity" in parentheses at the end of the paragraph. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally reliable for sentences such as "In total, there were 50 tornado reports received", but do NOT say "50 tornadoes reported" or "a total of 50 tornadoes occurred" using the unfiltered storm reports as the source. A single tornado can have several tornado reports associated with it. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Ditto per WFUM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally reliable per WFUM's reasoning. ^EF⁵ 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally unreliable - No evidence this YouTuber holds the qualifications needed to be a subject expert. Reliable per Willz. ^EF⁵ 22:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Where it was used on Tornadoes of 2024, I found that he has a master's in meteorology and is / was a research partner to Howard Bluestein. Departure– (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Departure–, huh, didn't know that. I could've swore I'd seen somewhere that he never worked in anything weather-related and was just an enthusiast. — ^EF⁵ 22:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Trey Greenwood (Convective Chronicles) should probably be considered reliable given he has a masters and has studied under experts such as Bluestein and Wurman. He also has multiple publications. (ex: https://ams.confex.com/ams/30SLS/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/407510) Wikiwillz (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't there a consensus either last year or in 2023 that it was unreliable? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Unreliable as user-generated. ^EF⁵ 21:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Generally unreliable as a tertiary source, similar to Wikipedia; however, as they cite their sources (and dare I say are more thorough than Wikipedia at it), they do seem to be a good starting point for sourcing deaths etc. Departure– (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes and no. If the article is saying that "a Tornado Warning was issued for so and so", then yes it's reliable. But if it's being used to cite a tornado that supposedly touched down. Then no it's not reliable, wait for official confirmation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why it can't be allowed with attribution - "The National Weather Service upgraded the warning to observed due to a public / spotter report of X (not just tornadoes)". If it turns out to be incorrect, that can be explained later on in the prose. Departure– (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see the point. But it still should be treated with caution, especially with the tables. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Reliable for prelim touchdown reports - This is basically public confirmation that there was indeed a tornado down at a specific time in a specific county, at a specific date near a specific location. No reason why this can't be used for tornado tables, especially as the event is ongoing. ^EF⁵ 01:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @EF5, sometimes people will send the National Weather Service false reports. It's illegal, but they still do it. And sometimes people will accidentally submit mPING reports and didn't intend to (that happened to me recently). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Hurricane Clyde, very, very, very, very, very rarely has that ever happened. I can't name the last time that happened prior or post-2022, when that Arkansas freak TOR-E happened. — ^EF⁵ 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  May 2022, public report of a tornado near Middlesboro, Kentucky triggered a confirmed Tornado Warning for the Ponza, Kentucky area. No tornado ever occurred. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Hurricane Clyde, other than 2022. That year was peak "wrongful reports" for some reason. — ^EF⁵ 01:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'd say it's generally reliable for preliminary tornadoes, but not necessarily for tornado ratings. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm adding this because during outbreaks people tend to use confirmed warnings as a source to add preliminary, "EF?" tornadoes to tables. ^EF⁵ 21:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Yes and no. If the article is saying that "a Tornado Warning was issued for so and so", then yes it's reliable. But if it's being used to cite a tornado that supposedly touched down. Then no it's not reliable, wait for official confirmation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Agree with Clyde on both tornado warning discussions above. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally unreliable except for RC-TOREs - The reason I separated these are because public confirmation and radar confirmation are two different verification methods. Radar-confirmed is a lot less "solid" as a source than public confirmation. TOR-Es are different, as all but two-or-so tornado emergencies ever have produced tornadoes. ^EF⁵ 01:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Independent German organization that has high-quality documentation and surveys of tornadoes in Germany ([1]).

Italian organization that documents severe weather in Italy, including for tornadoes ([2] & related database).

French organization that documents weather in France, incl. tornado surveys (website & Facebook page). The main problem is that a lot of valuable information is posted on their Facebook page. Would it be okay to cite their Facebook posts? For example: List of European tornadoes in 2025#1 February event-- they gave a rating for a tornado but only posted it on their Facebook page.

Brazilian organization that documents severe weather in parts of South America. ([3])

I'd like a clarification on FOX Weather's reliability status, given Trump's policies (which they wholeheartedly support) are now affecting the weather community. ^EF⁵ 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say case by case per above concerns. Though leaning towards being more reliable (unlike their partners at Fox News) for non-political weather topics. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Case-by-case per Clyde, but the second FOX Weather (inevitably) starts pushing a pro-Trump agenda it should be GUNREL'd. FOX is nothing to play around with, and this is barely over the bias margin. ^EF⁵ 01:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @EF5, I 1,000% agree. If it gets politically biased, then GUNREL it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Quick note that bias alone has never been used to deprecate a source; it must be actively spreading misinformation etc. Bias is only half of the problem, and can easily be addressed per WP:DUE etc. Fox News as a whole has, but I'm unsure if Fox Weather has. Departure– (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@EF5: Fox is considered unreliable for anything to do with science or politics. No need to discuss since the community at large already decided. Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hurricane Noah, this is FOX Weather, which doesn't seem to have a spot at WP:RS/PS. There also isn't consensus on the matter, so it isn't a set-in-stone GUNREL. — ^EF⁵ 19:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe fox weather is directly overseen and operated by fox news. Not sure if that makes it unreliable or not. Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

When I brought it up at RSN, the editors there seemed mostly blasé to it. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

As much as I dislike FOX as a corporation and recognize their strong bias, I'm going to have to say FOX Weather specifically has been generally reliable for weather reporting at the very least. Again, FOX as a whole appears biased but I haven't seen the same level of misinformation, so when using it recognize the bias and give everything it's due weight and everything should work out fine. Departure– (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Since we have some disagreement/“case-by-case” comments from users, would anyone be opposed if we shift the Fox Weather discussion to RSN for a community RFC? I’ll open it up if others are ok with it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Sure! ^EF⁵ 17:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Generally reliable with a few asterisks Bit late, but I have not seen FOX Weather be weird yet, though I have received push back from editors due to the connection to FOX. I do not believe I have seen them mention climate change, unlike several other sources, but that is usually fine in regards to individual hurricanes and tornadoes. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Necroposting but I have found possibly the first weird thing I have seen on FOX Weather. In this article, they refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, which signals an influence from the Republican government. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Reliable - From Yale University, which is a top-tier academic institution. ^EF⁵ 01:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'd say most accredited universities will probably be reliable to some extent. Especially ones like Yale and Iowa State. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

AccuWeather (based on past discussions) is typically reliable. But NOT for damage estimate soar amount figures, as AccuWeather has a tendency to over exaggerate the figures. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've added AccuWeather to the list. I know there was a RSN discussion on it last year, but I don't know where to find it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I just finished the tables for AccuWeather. Just like what is done on WP:RSP when there is a clause to a source (like WP:FORBES), AccuWeather has two table spots: generally reliable for news reporting and generally unreliable for damage estimates. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

In general, how are we going to count normal newspapers and media outlets. I would say generally reliable particularly for what happens on the ground, though being trumped by specialized outlets, particularly those like the NWS, when it comes to describing the meteorological history. Though I do believe many of the writers have meteorological degrees, especially at local outlets. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say generally reliable, unless otherwise noted. Obviously any particular source discussed would supersede this section. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 08:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unless it's on another perennial sources list (or the main list), which would again obviously supersede discussion here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

As for the local part of this comment, it might change from country to country. The United States is relatively systematized due to how empty the nation is and the fact that half a dozen media companies own the vast majority of the popular media in the nation. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It really depends on the reputation of the local station and the media company which owns it. But that said, most local news outlets are generally reliable unless otherwise noted for the broadcast area in which they serve, and in some cases for areas immediately around it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

That statement of mine is applicable only to the United States and Canada. I don’t have enough information about local media in other countries. A lot of smaller countries don’t have as robust of local news. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I’ve used local outlets quite frequently in weather articles especially in the United States. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to add a couple of national meteorological services on this list for consideration. I am lumping them all into one category, because they're all government run weather services. They are in no particular order:

• Environment Canada
• UK Met Office
• Irish Meteorological Service
• Bureau of Meteorology (Australia)
• Met Service (New Zealand)
• DWD (Germany)
• Japan Meteorological Agency
• India Meteorological Department

More could be added. I personally think they're all generally reliable like the National Weather Service, but I obviously didn't want to unilaterally add them to the list. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 08:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Met Office, JMA, and BoM I am relatively certain are generally reliable. The others except for India's I would also presume to be generally reliable as the nations are developed with low levels of corruption. I am not familiar with IMD enough to comment on it's reliability. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Quxyz, I know IMD has a pretty robust tropical cyclone center. They are considered an RSMC for that region. I personally think IMD is reliable at least for tropical cyclone information (alongside JTWC) and for weather warnings issued in India (see my comments below). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 08:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Obviously this is a non-exhaustive list. Meteo France and probably all or most other EU countries, along with every RSMC should also be discussed. Though very likely reliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am more than happy to post sections for a particular agency if one needs to be discussed separately from this category. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I say that and I've noticed someone has added the South African Weather Service to the list of sources, without giving a rating. Maybe this should also be discussed? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll ping @WeatherWriter since they added it (in 2024 apparently). A little surprised it has taken a year and a half for someone/anyone to discuss it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding more to be reconsidered:

• PAGASA (Philippines)
• Hong Kong Observatory
• China Meteorological Administration
• Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau (Macao)
• Korea Meteorological Administration

FourNoddlers (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think PAGASA and the Hong Kong Observatory can be considered generally reliable at least for typhoons. PAGASA is probably reliable in other weather and science fields as well, but I am not quite familiar enough with them to give an opinion outside of their typhoon forecasting. As for KMA, they're probably a reliable source for Korea related weather. But for official intensity of typhoons in infoboxes, I would only use JMA or JTWC. CMA I think may be at least marginally reliable, especially for Chinese weather. But given them being a Chinese government agency in a communist country known to produce communist propaganda, I do think that one is maybe one of those case by case sort of situations. No comment on Macau. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

However, I do think ALL national meteorological services, even ones that get GUNRELed (like for example, I don't think anyone is going to reasonably consider North Korea's weather service, or any .kp source for that matter to be all that reliable for obvious reasons), but that said, ALL government run weather offices should at least be considered reliable when citing a claim about a weather warning being issued by a particular entity. Regardless of how reputable they are otherwise. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 08:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

For example, CMA can definitely be considered reliable when citing a claim that a typhoon warning was issued in China (regardless of how questionable the Chinese government can be elsewhere). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 08:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Adding more:

• Charlie Neumann
• Michael L. Chenoweth

FourNoddlers (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Are these two supposed to be under National meteorological services? I know they were NHC people but this seems a little different. MCRPY22 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

No. They're people who made wind speed reports for storms worldwide. FourNoddlers (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you have some examples of their work? MCRPY22 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

IBTrACS FourNoddlers (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@FourNoddlers, for the purposes of this discussion, I was intending to discuss mainly the agencies themselves. Though feel free to add another section with those people. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

and Central Weather Administration (Taiwan) FourNoddlers (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I will add this though, for anyone who has not heard of the RFC yet. They did blacklist archive.today, they aren't letting anyone add new links to it, and they want remaining links taken down ASAP because the maintainers are modifying the archives, and the site is apparently using a malicious CAPTCHA. The reason I'm posting the warning here is because we've sometimes used archive.today links, especially for alerts issued by the National Weather Service. For future reference, IEM archives all bulletins issued by NWS, and Internet Archive's Wayback Machine is still okay. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

For reference: here is the RFC. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sigh for various reasons this is going to be a nightmare for the project.Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

For some context: here is a link to a discussion had on the Weather talk page about converting links from webcite to archive.today.

Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jason Rees, I am posting a message to the main WP:Weather talk page as well, informing as many people as possible. Also, if that don't get them; the edit filter will (if they try to add an archive.today link). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page hasn't been edited since June, but a pretty clear consensus has formed for some of the sources on this talk page - should they be filled in or added now? HurricaneZeta^C 03:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

If it’s a section that’s been stale for months, sure go right ahead. If it’s one that still has ongoing or relatively recent discussion, then no. Ping: @HurricaneZeta. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricane Clyde Alright, I'm adding a few from above. HurricaneZeta^C 21:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I recently encountered a Bureau of Meteorology page on the recent Severe Tropical Cyclone Mitchell, which contains information that is obviously inaccurate, especially in regards to dates. It is part of their past tropical cyclones reports, which I usually use for information on previous cyclones which have occurred in the region.

Link to the page in question: https://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/Mitchell2026.shtml (Archive as of 02:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC))

Is anyone aware if this is a regular issue with these reports, and if it is, should additional considerations apply when using it?

• Duration given: 21-28 January 2026, cyclone occurred in February.
• Highest recorded wind gust on 7 January.

Mitchsavl (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchsavl: I see that the mistakes have been fixed now and that the system occurred in both January and February, which makes me strongly suspect that you just highlighted a couple of mistakes by the report's author that are easily made, rather than anything major that's worth writing home about. (Please forgive the bad pun!) Jason Rees (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I forgive the pun, I assumed it was just a one-off error, but I just thought I'd double check. If I thought this was a regular occurrence, I would've gone to Wikipedia:RS/N, where there would be greater visibility, instead. Thanks! Mitchsavl (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Started in June 2026 as a fork of the now former climate.gov, written by former climate.gov staff. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Tornadoes of Yesteryear is a series of books written by Blue Ayanami detailing as many tornadoes as possible, not just the significant ones. (There are only two books at the moment, however new editions are expected later)

Volume 1 contains every reported tornado from the year 919 - 1880.

Volume 2 contains more prominent tornado events from 1882 - 1935.

These books are similar to the works of Grazulis, however as stated before, they contain more tornadoes than just the significant ones, these summaries are also more detailed. Every tornado listed in the books also contains a list of sources, usually Newspaper or Scientific Report sources, sources which are frequently used on older tornado pages on Wikipedia.

Another difference usually is with the ratings of tornadoes. With many ratings differing from Grazulis', such as the 1860 Camanche, Iowa tornado, Grazulis rates as F4, while in Tornadoes of Yesteryear VOL 1, the Camanche tornado is rated as F5. Along with ratings, Listed Fatalities and Injuries can differ as well.

The only potential issue I see with this is simply the author, Blue Ayanami, lacking credentials. However as stated before, these books are well sourced, and the sources themselves are considered reliable for Wikipedia.

I personally am for either Generally reliable or at worse, Additional considerations. Quincy Gordon (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Generally unreliable - not a subject matter expert and provides self-made content like ratings meaning that not everything in the book can be independently verified; that in of itself is enough for me to say no. ^EF₅ 10:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Only the ratings are really "self-made", every other claim within the book is reliably sourced. The listed fatality and injury counts, the details of each tornado. All are reliably sourced. So idk why you specifically focused on one thing and said "yep, unreliable" Quincy Gordon (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could you please tone down the hostility? Every time I’ve interacted with you it’s been very heated for like zero reason whatsoever.

I’m not “focusing on one thing”, I’m factoring in the fact that sources have standards. This is not from a subject matter expert or someone who appears to have any standing degree whatsoever and so there is little to no lenience for uncited or poorly-cited material. If an entire book from some random person cannot be verified I don’t see what makes it’s usage reliable. ^EF₅ 11:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not being hostile?

The author is very open about their sources, each section on a tornado has a list of sources attached, so that you can look through them yourselves if you wish. Quincy Gordon (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Generally unreliable per WP:SPS, "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. Self-published material, such as books, newsletters, personal websites ... are largely not acceptable as sources."

I respect Blue Ayanami's effort in researching these tornado events, but since they do not have credentials, the information within the book itself cannot be used on Wikipedia, as there are several major differences between the information included within the book and generally accepted sources, such as the ratings and casualty counts.

This also makes me wonder, since Grazulis' information on Tornado Archive has mostly been replaced with Ayanami's information, is there any other way to access Grazulis' data pre-1880, or would including such information be limited to those that own the Significant Tornadoes book, if consensus were to conclude that these books are unreliable? Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 23:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Idk about the aspect of Grazulis, though I will mention a slight update, Ayanami is currently seeing if they can get their books peer reviewed by academic university publishers, and I really hope they can Quincy Gordon (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

description-i am nanhee. 몇번을 나의 이름과 함께 남긴 내 족보가 된 이쪽마운틴 사막이었더래도 카메라자리는 거기서도 광주 무등산에 오른 이준석의 사진을 가리킨다 있다. 네이버와 카카오가 너의 뇌리에 스며들듯 떠오른 내 생각. 비록 짐적이었을 지라도, 카카오는 그에 미끼는 것을 내게 해주었다. His Closed Friend..이 서식 꾸미기 되어있는 건가. 너희것들의 정신없이 해옴이 막상 너무 지쳐버려서 내ㅡㅡ가 알고자 하는것에는 끼지않는 부분이었더래도 붙여도 놨겠다 그간의 시간에 충분히..! 장군! 비슷하여 겹치는 이름. 선생님의 채널을 보기가 어렵게 막은 그 남학생 이름도 까먹었고 지금은 어찌된건지 너무 나올만 한 때에 보이지 않는다. ~2026-43879-22 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply