Irving, (...) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (...) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all."Walker, Andrew (20. februar 2006). "UK | Profile: David Irving". BBC News. Arkiveret fra originalen 28. januar 2007. Hentet 2. september 2011.
"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."Evans, Richard J."Chapter 6. General Conclusion". Holocaust Denial On Trial: Expert Witness Report. Arkiveret fra originalen 1. oktober 2016. Hentet 19. december 2013.
David Irving is no longer widely considered to be a historian.
"In 1969, efter David Irving's støtte til Rolf Hochhuth, den tyske dramaturg som beskyldte Churchill for at myrde den polske General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph udstedte en meddelelse til alle bladets journalister. Deri blev følgende formuleret: "'It is incorrect, to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.'" Ingrams, Richard (25. februar 2006). "Irving was the author of his own downfall". London: Independent.co.uk. Arkiveret fra originalen 20. december 2007. Hentet 27. marts 2010.
David Irving is no longer widely considered to be a historian.
"In 1969, efter David Irving's støtte til Rolf Hochhuth, den tyske dramaturg som beskyldte Churchill for at myrde den polske General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph udstedte en meddelelse til alle bladets journalister. Deri blev følgende formuleret: "'It is incorrect, to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.'" Ingrams, Richard (25. februar 2006). "Irving was the author of his own downfall". London: Independent.co.uk. Arkiveret fra originalen 20. december 2007. Hentet 27. marts 2010.
"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."Evans, Richard J."Chapter 6. General Conclusion". Holocaust Denial On Trial: Expert Witness Report. Arkiveret fra originalen 1. oktober 2016. Hentet 19. december 2013.
Irving, (...) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (...) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all."Walker, Andrew (20. februar 2006). "UK | Profile: David Irving". BBC News. Arkiveret fra originalen 28. januar 2007. Hentet 2. september 2011.
