Are al-Waqidi and Sayf ibn 'Umar al-Tamimi authoritative in matters of Siyar and Maghazi, despite being abandoned in the narration of Hadith?

The narrations of Al-Waqidi and Sayf ibn Umar al-Tamimi are not accepted in Hadith and history unless confirmed, due to their weakening by the Imams. However, their statements should not be disregarded, as many researchers have done. Ibn Taymiyyah said that their narrations are suitable for corroboration and follow-up, as a multitude of testimonies can lead to certainty. Ibn Kathir mentioned that Al-Waqidi has good additions and well-edited historical accounts, while Al-Dhahabi said: "It has been established that Al-Waqidi is weak; he is needed in matters of battles (maghazi) and history. We mention his reports without using them as definitive proofs. As for legal rulings (fara'id), he should not be mentioned." As for Sayf ibn Umar al-Tamimi, he is weak in Hadith but a major source in history, as Ibn Hajar stated.