Talk:Wannsee Conference

message: This was recently tagged for discussion as to splitting off the house of Wannsee (museum) to a separate article. I do not believe that’s necessary. History of the house up to the present day can easily be kept and incorporated with this article. They’re both tied together in history. It would be an unnecessary fork. Kierzek (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag. There's no reason for a split at present. If and when there's enough material for a separate article, we can create one. That might never happen, because as far as I know the site is only notable for this one event.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  split 

message: Yehuda Bauer, major Holocaust historian, has rejected the importance of the Wannsee Conference. His statements were printed in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and in Canadian Jewish News. HonestManBad (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yehuda Bauer's comments should be included 

message: "to avoid any repetition of the disputes that had arisen earlier in the annihilation campaign."
This is sudden information.  What disputes?  This needs context to show its meaning better.  What were the previous issues that had happened? 113.37.188.122 (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Heydrich was trying to prevent further complaints from his military and civilian subordinates about the genocide. — Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Okay I have better wording in place. Check it when you have a minute. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier disputes 

message: What is this source talking about?  Has anyone heard of troop trains?  Either the source is wrong, or the source has been misinterpreted; either way, this content does not belong here.  123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check the source book at the library tomorrow and see what it says.  — Diannaa (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The book says that the original intention was to deport the Jews to camps in occupied areas of the Soviet Union and kill them there, but because victory over the Soviet Union was not forthcoming and there was no occupied Soviet territory to which they could be shipped (even via troop trains as you suggest), the plans had to be changed and the Jews were to be killed in situ in locations in the General Government instead. — Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "since transporting masses of people into a combat zone was impossible" 

message: I recently made an edit to the "Attendees" section of this page. There was new material provided with reliable sources cited in support. There were also numerous copy edits that I believe corrected, improved and clarified the content. The edit was completely reverted by User:Antique Rose with no explanation, which violates the guidance in Help:Reverting: "In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea ... in the event of a content dispute, a convincing, politely-worded explanation gains much importance and avoids unnecessary disputes." 
I realize that Good Articles present a high bar for improvement, but to wholesale ban any changes without explanation or discussion does a disservice to good faith editors. The essay on Wikipedia:Reverting states: "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits ... If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it ... editors often bundle multiple changes into a single edit, such as adding a new section while also fixing a copy error elsewhere on the page. If you object to only part of an edit, consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone." 
So, I would ask that the reverting editor provide the requisite explanation and reconsider the reversion to determine if there are parts that should be accepted or whether improvements can be offered, rather than being eliminated completely. I also welcome input from other interested regular editors of this page. Thank you. Historybuff0105 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost removed it too because of the lack of sources. A source would be needed for each individual entry. Adding the fates of the participants is off-topic for this article as well.  — Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking explanation for recent reversion