A very interesting article - it reminds me of an occasion some years ago when I was writing my undergraduate dissertation and my tutor, a world-authority on World War II special operations who I won't name but does have his own Wikipedia article, recommended Irving's book "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17". I voiced concern at using an author whose reputation was by then in tatters and the tutor replied to the effect that I might as well use him as I wouldn't find any other source on the topic that was a) as well written and b) didn't draw extensively from Irving's research. It is certainly interesting to see how the debate has moved on (or not) since then.Jackyd101 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issues addressed here remind me in some ways of sorting through sources for the Russo-German War. The initial set of sources were heavily biased to the German view while material released by the Soviet regime glossed over Soviet errors and failures. Subsequently, material produced by authors like Glantz have helped address some of the glaring inconsistencies, but it is still a challenge to write articles about this conflict that remain neutral in tone and sort out what occurred on the battlefield. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ten years late to the party, but we should note that Neufeld is not entirely full of praise for Irving's book. Neufeld says that Irving kept the Nazi slave worker aspect out of his book, even though he "certainly" was aware of it.[1] Neufeld says that an American book published at the same time covered the topic better: James McGovern in Crossbow and Overcast (1964). Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
