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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Not done -- the change you appear to want would be entirely inappropriate, not least because it is not supported by reliable sources. Thanks for your opinion, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this man isn't a very good person and that's a fact that this article needs to express. However, the entire opening section reads like someone's angry diatribe about an ex friend or lover. The problem with this method of presenting information is that the site looks heavily biased and deceptive to younger readers who will see the bias in the article and believe the very conspiracies the man professed because the man can easily be seen as a victim of a smear campaign. Even the page on Adolf Hitler is less aggressively negative but that could be due to the overwhelming support for eugenics and the eugenics movement by many editors on this site(look how whitewashed the article on Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory or the Indian Health Service).
If you know anything about Russian propaganda and pseudo-rightwing people on the internet, then you know that nothing fuels their conspiracies like the perceived victimization of their own kind. Whoever wrote the introduction to this article has greatly helped the neo-nazi cause. Nothing solidifies support in bad causes like the perception of victimization of the people involved. That's what Hitler did to rise to power and whoever wrote much of this article is helping the neo-nazi cause. Be professional when dealing with controversial topics since the wrong words can send the wrong message. The causes of men like him are fueled by the over-active censorship and mudslinging. 2604:2D80:6305:600:1595:C94D:DC4:424E (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any concrete suggestions? Pure rants do not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read this article and agree it is rather messy and could be improved. I am quite new to this stuff but suggest that the lead is too long, literally for a start. I might have a go, but will wait to see if anyone else agrees/disagrees. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is not longer than it should be. What would you delete from it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hob Gadling. Thanks for the comment. I'd restructure it to two paragraphs. I would edit down the wordage describing reasons for the subjects present low standing. I'd slightly recontextualise, too. The subject has never been regarded as a serious scholar. He has no qualifications or training as a historian, apparently. His personal history is one of obsession and marginal relevance; more like an amateur historian who dug up a few interesting minor points through doggedness. The Lipstadt trial is what made him well-known for a while, and that concluded that he is a minor figure notable only because of the marginality, and offensiveness, of his views. The way the lead is structured, with too much blow-by-blow, makes him look far more significant than he is. IMHO only, of course. But I think I can stand it up enough to reduce the lead. As I also said, that the lead needs fixed is really only the start - actually, it should be the end and come after a re-working of the whole article. The article is very flabby, in my opinion. At points, I think its value is slightly affected by a lack of WP:NPOV in its general thrust. It seems written to encourage the reader to dislike the subject, rather written to allow the reader to draw their own (obvious, in my opinion) views. The subject is a minor, jobbing, non-scholarly author whose preparedness to voice extreme right-wing sentiment relatively late in the century made him a figure of minor note for a while. That doesn't justify listing and critiquing his un-notable works at length as if he were an important author. Again, all my opinion only. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, this article needs more citation and be subjective. ThomasFrancis12 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has over 200 citations. From a bulk quantity perspective it doesn't "need more". What specifically would you change/better cite? VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been unconfirmed reports of death, but it's highly inappropriate to speculate that the death toll of David Irvings is the ludicrously high claim of 1 without a reliable source. I don't believe sources wholly reliant on what a far-right "Unity News Network" has said are considered reliable. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Daily Mail, which is of course usually total rubbish and isn't a RS but has published some surprisingly good articles on related topics, reported a couple of weeks ago that he was seriously ill. If he has died it would be covered in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source: [1] reporting on what the "Unity News Network" is saying. jps (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thats the only source you managed to find? when i heard he had apparently died, i looked him up and the only sources i could find were some random canadian papers. very odd Bird244 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Contrary to circulating rumours, we're relieved to share that David Irving remains with us, though, as many of you know, he is currently facing health challenges. We appreciate the concern and support during this time and will continue to provide updates as appropriate. Thank you for your understanding and respect for his privacy." (21st February 2024)
An account some are saying is linked to Irving (though it was created in February 2024 so that seems questionable ...) is now claiming the David Irving toll is in fact, grossly exaggerated https://twitter.com/irving_books
A user changed David's 'years active' from '1962-present' to '1962-2024' because of his supposed death. I can't edit the article since it's protected so I thought I'd mention it here so someone else can change it.
We should wait until there is a reliable source for it; I haven't seen one yet. —BillCtalk 08:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted this change, as there remain no reliable sources stating that Irving has died. If this is true, I imagine that they will be published soon. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be dead but I think it's accurate to say he's no longer active (as a writer etc) as of 2023 as the family's statement says "It is with sadness that we must accept that David is now unable to engage in his life’s work".[1]Wellington Bay (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done -- the change you appear to want would be entirely inappropriate, not least because it is not supported by reliable sources. Thanks for your opinion, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)