The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
In the article, it states that "Irving's affairs caused his first marriage to end in divorce in 1981." - but there is no citation. I think this should be removed as per
I don't think the problem is as great as you lay out. The article is written well, and covers a lot of territory with appropriate detail. 156 kb isn't outlandishly big.
WP:TOOBIG
says "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material."
The GA version in 2011 contained block quotes, too. The block quotes convey a great deal of information including Irving's deeply hateful tone, which would disappear if summarized.
@Binksternet: Sorry I did not respond to this sooner: I missed it on my watchlist. Responses below
I do not think the scope of this topic can justify the length: if there were already attempts to
spin out
the article, I could agree with this, but this article has not done so yet so I do not think all of this information should stay here.
Regarding block quotes:
WP:NOR
says we should not be making interpretations of the work. Instead, Wikipedia should be presenting what secondary sources have said about the topic. If the block quotes "convey a great deal of information including Irving's deeply hateful tone" then it should be presented from secondary sources. Also, direct quotes might bring copyright concerns if done too often, which is why I recommend using them sparingly and summarising the information instead.
Would you be interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to
Do whatever you think is right. I think the GAR process will unnecessarily waste the community's time. For 14 years now, the article has contained a bunch of blockquotes. In 2010, the peer-reviewed version had 1,162 words worth of blockquotes. The previous GAR attempt (archived at Talk:David Irving/GA2) was a biased attempt to whitewash the article resulting in affirmation of the GA status. The article has been improved bit by bit for more than a decade, and represents standing consensus on the topic. I don't think a new GAR is necessary. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are a lot of block quotes in the article, which would be better summarised. The article is not concise, and some sections are very long which would benefit from being broken up by headings. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be straightforward to address the issue with uncited statements, which seems fairly limited with the current text. I've just fixed one issue and will try to fix the others. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited what I think all the material not covered by a citation and added some more sub-headings. I've also trimmed some unnecessary detail. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Discredited?
The sources provided for the discredited comment in the lead are rather lacking. One is a blurb from a website for a PBS documentary 20 years ago, an awful source. Another is from a book published by journalist
Peter Wyden
, who doesn't have credentials as a historians. Then the comment by Graham Long refers to Irving being "discredited" but does not state he has been "discredited by historians", so this is SYNTH.
I think this comment should be removed until there's actual evidence in the form of statements by multiple historians (or polling data for historians) proving it. JDiala (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an impressive attempt at barrel-bottom-scraping. Taking everything together, the sources are more than adequate. If you feel a need to reinforce it, perhaps you could explore some of the >3000 sources potentially useful for this purpose: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre personal attack. Material needs to be properly sourced. The onus is on those wanting to include material to properly explain why their source supports their claim. It just seems odd to me that for such a definitive statement being made, editors have had difficulty finding actual historians calling him discredited. I should also note (for utmost clarity) that I am not a supporter of Irving or his views. However, I do take the integrity of the project seriously, especially for BLP articles. JDiala (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
