I'm not sure David Irving can be called a scholar or a valid source considering he has been firmly debunked, and lost his libel suit because he lied and made up sources.
To quote one of the expert witnesses at his trial:
> 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.
To quote one of the expert witnesses at his trial:
> 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.