Talk:Order of Nine Angles

GA Reassessment

Order of Nine Angles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This article was GA'd in 2016, and has been updated little since then, with the exception of piecemeal and low quality additions of news sourcing of various Incidents members were involved with, which has now been split to another page.

So that problem is solved, but what remains is much more difficult, which is that this article incorporates no scholarship in the past 9 years, when in that period the group has become far more notorious and many more high quality writings on it have come out since then than in the whole of the period before it. versus to give an example. Entirely absent from this article is content and high-quality sources relating to the period where the subject has become the most notable.

It therefore fails the GAC#3, the broadness criterion in missing out on an entire decade of the group's history and all modern sources on it. I mentioned this on the talk page but it remains unaddressed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely support the idea that more recent sources should be integrated into the article, and am happy to set about doing so. Accordingly, I see no need for the Good Article status to be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now made a start on integrating material from some of the post-2016 academic publications into this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That is much better. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA and Midnightblueowl: do you feel that improvements of this article are still needed, or that it now meets the GA criteria? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 What is here now is enough to meet the GA criteria IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Affiliated Groups

@PARAKANYAA I think I recall a dispute recently where an editor was quite critical of WP's sources for O9A affiliated groups but I can't find the conversation. Do you happen to remember? Because with those additions to the infobox (just removed) we want to make sure we aren't repeating past sourcing mistakes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I think you can see several on Talk:Order of Nine Angles/Archive 2, but if it was specific on the sourcing that might have been before I started editing on this page.

This is a recurrent problem because there are tons of confusion in this sphere and sources frequently disagree, and what is not affiliated or influenced or whatever, and what sourcing is there is frequently not great and mostly in the context of individual arrests. Low quality crime sourcing likes to crowd in everything under this banner where scholarly sourcing does not.

Whether true or false I think the "related groups" is just so confused and ancillary to the main topic as to not belong in the infobox - the infobox before was a total nightmare, to the point where the person who got this article to GA attempted to remove it entirely - my compromise was including a basic infobox, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Including a bunch of "affiliations" goes against INFOBOXPURPOSE anyway.

I should probably write articles on some of these "affiliated" groups, there is scholarly sourcing about them and that would make it clearer and people would be less motivated to shove information about it here, but really, is it worth dealing with the nightmare editing environment that may result? Eh... PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. That sounds about right. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)