Talk:Olyka

Town or Village[edit]

Guys, it must be a town or village. Ukraine is not so large, and I live there for all my life. So if I haven't heard of such a city, it is not. Check you sources. AlexPU 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it's a town, my sources say it's a town... so where's the problem? Anyway, it's there and it's pretty small nowadays, only some 4k inhabitants or so. Halibu tt 03:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vitam! The only problem is the category saying it's the "city of Ukraine" :) AlexPU 07:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retelling broad histories in narrow articles[edit]

Gentlemen, I already raised the issue elsewhere and couple of times but please take a look again. We need to do something about a tendency to attempt retelling a complex history of Ukraine in many placename articles within one paragraph. The trhird paragraph of Kamianets-Podilskyi#History and this article is just two of many examples. Let's take a look at this paragraph of the article:

After the Partitions of Poland in 1795 the town was annexed by Russia. In 19th century it continued to play its role as a centre of wood and grain trade. During World War I in 1915 and 1916 the area was a scene of heavy fighting between the forces of Russia and Austria-Hungary. After the Polish-Bolshevik War the town was restored to Poland and the local palace was refurbished. In the effect of the Polish Defence War of 1939 and the Nazi-Soviet Alliance, the town was occupied by Soviet Union. After the Operation Barbarossa the German occupation started and lasted until 1944. After World War II the area was annexed by the Soviet Union and incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR. Since 1991 it is a part of Ukraine.

How much from this is town related? Well perhaps only these:

...In 19th century it continued to play its role as a centre of wood and grain trade. During World War I in 1915 and 1916 the area was a scene of heavy fighting between the forces of Russia and Austria-Hungary... the local palace was refurbished.

That's all. If it was a location of concentration camp, fine, we would mention that and the WW2. If it was Petlyura's headquarters or smth, we could bring in the PSW or PUW. But attempting to retell the history of UA in two sentences has an obvious caveat of being just impossible. Some events cannot be told without the context and the context cannot fit into the small space when the article is devoted to a town or a fortress. As an example, the Dubno article is relatively balanced in that it does not bring in too much of an unrelated info (I am not saying it is balanced in every respect).

I hate to get into deleting pieces of other people's writing as this is one of the most annoying things at wikipedia, comparable only to Games with the Names. But I would like to hear from others about it and, if possible, to see this problem addressed. Regards, --Irpen 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second Irpen's summary of the problem. No need to repeat the same stuff in thousands articles on every town and village. --Ghirlandajo 07:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, though I do not agree with it. We write such articles for people who have no idea whatsoever on what a certain town is. To explain its history, we have to resort to explaining a tad of region's history as well - no town is an island in Central Europe. Of course, at times such a shortened description is not enough - but hey, that's when people can check History of Ukraine or History of Galicia, or any similar article linked in the see also section. As to the specific example above - it is by far not enough as per the article on History of certain region or country. However, it gives some insight into what actually happened, refers to proper places where more info could be obtained and explains the reasons why the town changed hands. As such, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as we keep the links. Halibu tt 10:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it is that there is no way to give an objective picture of the history of Ukraine within three short sentences. Controversial events described without context of the time when they happened could only be misleading rather than informative. The city articles should present only what's relevant to the city. You can add links [[History of country]] (Ukraine or other) or the [[region article]] (Pokuttya or Bukovina) where the more space can be allocated to histories and anyone's interested will click. But adding links, which is harmless and useful, doesn't justify trying to retell what's in those long articles under these links in two sentences, because it is simply impossible to tell it this way without harm of loading the reader with misleading or meaningless (or both) info.

Example of misleading info: "After the Polish-Bolshevik War the town was restored to Poland.... In the effect of the Polish Defence War of 1939 and the Nazi-Soviet Alliance, the town was occupied by Soviet Union. .. After World War II the area was annexed by the Soviet Union and incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR. "
- There are no untruths in it, just lack of context caused by the necessitated brevity makes it misleading as well as the bolded terminology.
Example of meaningless info "After the Operation Barbarossa the German occupation started and lasted until 1944... Since 1991 it is a part of Ukraine."
- See also, [1] and [2].
Example of relevant info: "In XXXX the local palace was refurbished.".

--Irpen 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no responses, I will purge the article from what's irrelevant to the town of Olyka. --Irpen 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this article and added a World War II section under the "Jewish presence" subheading, while taking into consideration your previous discussion. Some of the general WWII information is important for readers of Olyka to know, because Olyka and its surrounding areas were the sites of Jewish massacres during the Holocaust. All references I added mention Olyka specifically. JJMM (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but is the WP:TITLE of this article "Olyka" - a town in current day Ukraine - or "Jewish historiography of Olyka"? There's a huge difference between constructive 'updating' and usurping a broad scope article and WP:UNDUE given that it looms larger in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian history (please read the discussions above). I understand the significance, but the subject area you've developed is more appropriate for the antisemitism and Holocaust articles. At best the content you've focussed on should be developed as a SPIN-OFF article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on "Olyka" - a town in current day Ukraine. It is a small village, and the original article had sections on the town's history and on its "Jewish presence." I understand what you're saying - the article reads more like a history of Olyka, but that's the way it was originally created. As far as WP:UNDUE, I guess it depends how we interpret the following: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." On the one hand, Jews weren't a minority in Olyka until they were wiped out by the Nazis (at least half the population were Jews), and the majority of references that are available about Olyka discuss the Jewish population due to its historical significance. On the other hand, I can see the logic of creating a separate article specifically on the Olyka Ghetto and what happened during WWII.--JJMM (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James James Morrison Morrison: Personally, I suspect that it should have its own article, although I do understand that the continuous Jewish presence for a few centuries makes it difficult to simply split it off as if its significance revolved around the Holocaust... so how does one split it off. It's a bit of a head-scratcher. Okay, I'm fine with letting it stand as is, but I think it's in need of a little tweaking. Perhaps other editors will weigh in on the issue (particularly as you've nominated it for DYK). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. FYI for any other editors who might want to weigh in, I looked around and here are a few examples of how this situation has been dealt with on Wikipedia:

-Șimleu Silvaniei: This is a Romanian large town that had a Jewish ghetto during WWII, and had its Jewish population completely eradicated. The main town article has a section on the "Holocaust," with a section link to an article on the ghetto

-Drohobych: This is a city that was part of Ukraine during WWII, and had a Jewish ghetto. The city's majority Jewish population almost completely perished. The main city article mostly discusses its history, with one paragraph on what happened during WWII and a link to an article on the Drohobycz Ghetto.

-Trochenbrod: This was a small Jewish town that was part of Ukraine during WWII, had a ghetto, and had its Jewish population completely eradicated. Most of the information on the town article is historical (because the town no longer exists), with a section on the "The Holocaust." There is no separate article on the ghetto. JJMM (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC) --JJMM[reply]

-One more - Dubno was mentioned in this Talk previously as an example of a balanced article, and it's mostly historical with a section titled "Jewish history." The small Ukranian city had a majority Jewish population right before WWII that was mostly killed, with a Jewish ghetto during the Holocaust. There is no separate article on the ghetto. --JJMM (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]