Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Sources

Hindustan Times and TimesNowNews for ongoing US severe weather

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]

Discussion

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

Tornado Archive

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]

James Spann

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]

Ethan Moriarty ("June First")

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]

TornadoTRX

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]

Alabama Weather Blog

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]

Reed Timmer and his crew

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]
Generally unreliable for any claims not directly related to himself or the Y'all Squad. Besides forecasts which as EF5 brings up are often overemphasized I don't know what else you'd use him as a source for. Departure– (talk) 22:12, 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]

Ryan Hall, Y'all

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]

The Y'all Squad

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]

Max Velocity

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]

SPC unfiltered storm reports

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]

Convective Chronicles

~~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]

UStornadoes

USdeadlyevents.com

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]

"Weather-spotter/public confirmed" tornado warnings

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]

"Radar confirmed" tornado warnings

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]

TorKUD

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

MeteoNetwork & PRETEMP

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

Météo-Varoise

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.

Metsul Meteorologia

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

WeatherBrains podcast

FOX Weather

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]

Weather Underground blog

Yale Climate Connections

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

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]