Talk:Druskininkai

name of city

to Halibutt mainly Why do you use Polish name of the city? It is situated in nowadays Lithuania, and ethnically it is Belarusian, so it should be logical to choose between Lithuanian and Belarusian names, I think. --Monkbel 21:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would claim that use of Belarusian name is not very appropriate. There is no information on the ethnicity of population until XVIII century when Druskininkai was extremely small village (before territory it was inhabited by baltic Yotvingian tribe). Documents of Privalka (Przewalka, Pervalkas) estate lists inhabitants of Druskininkai who according to their surnames are lithuanian. Etymology of the name Druskininkai speaks for it itself. It name derives from the word druska (salt). Druskininkai are famous for its mineral springs. Mineralisation of which is pretty high, therefore water of some springs is extremely salty. When the Spa resort was established by the decree of Russian Czar in XIX century. Village began expanding, developing. Later on it transformed into town where many nationalities lived (Jewish, Russian, Polish, some Lithuanians). People where arriving from all Russian empire. However, none of them dominated by number.

How Druskininkai is related to Belarus? By proximity. Its just five kilometers from the border and few percents of Druskininkai population are Belarusians. It obtained one sanatorium "Belarus" in 90s. Druskininkai enjoys close relationship with Belarus city Grodno. However, nor Belarus nor Belarusians never played relevant role in the development of the town. Russians or Soviets on the contrary played huge role, they put big effort to develop the resort and people from all over the Soviet Union flocked for relaxation. Druskininkai was widely known Spa resort among the population of the USSR. Therefore, it would be sensible to use Russian name instead of Belarusian.--15 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.121.124 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

To Lysy: The sentence After the World War I the town became part of the restored Poland implies understanding that the city (region) of Druskininkai were somehow retored to be a part of Poland, which is not true.

I would offer changing the sentence into After the World War I the town became part of Poland or After the World War I the town was under rule of Poland, leaving the link to Polish-Lithuanian_conflict. --UmR 05:29:48, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

All right, I removed the "restored" wording that troubled you. The sentence however did not imply what you thought, as it only stated that the town was part of the restored Poland and not that the town was restored to Poland. That is something completely different. I would also like to avoid any suggestions whether or not Poland had any grounds to claim the city and whether these claims were justified or not. I only wanted to state the fact that it was in Poland if you look at the map of Europe between the wars and that this period also contributed somehow to the town's history. --Lysy ^(talk) 05:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lysy, I dare to say that it did imply what I thought, being somewhat instinctive manipulation, popular in polish written articles in wiki. By writing this, I want to draw your attention to prejudices, that, although are often tried to be consciously overran, are typical to the Poles and should not be present here. Do not interpret this as an insult; I do not have intentions like that.

If memory serves me right, the town was a part of the Kingdom of Poland before the partitions and then the Congress Kingdom between the partitions and its' annexation by Russia after the January Uprising. If so, then in 1918-1920 it was simply restored to Poland, as it used to belong to that state before. Or am I wrong? Halibu tt 09:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to avoid this discussion, as it seems that Polish and Lithuanian views on history differ, especially for the interbellum period. I believe it's pretty neutral as it is now. We do not say that the town was "liberated" or "occupied" or "controlled by", only state the simple fact that it was in Poland at this particular time. It belongs to Lithuania now, and similarly we don't claim that it is "occupied" etc. --Lysy ^(talk) 11:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to Lysy on the fact that current version is quite neutral, providing any reader with a good overall picture of history of Druskininkai. If we don't want to get into specific details within this article, it should be left as it is.

However I'd like to hear from Halibutt a more specific explanation of his version of history, which is interesting to me personally for two reasons: knowing something more about the city and in order to obtain a better view of what is going on here in wiki --UmR 12:17:31, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Castle

What exactly castle is meant in the sentence "A small castle was built in the area as a part of the defence system against the Teutonic Order. The castle was conquered by Teutonic Knights and destroyed in 1308 and the area was soon depopulated." I know two possible places near Druskininkai - Liškiava (Liszków in Polish; its a small city 8 km from Druskininkai, featuring a mound of a castle, church and ex. jacobin monastery) and Merkinė (Merecz). So which one of them, or maybe smth. else? --UmR 06:11:07, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I don't know about the castle in Druskininkai, but the stone castle in Liškiava supposedly was build by Vytautas in the end of 14th century. Apparently there was a wooden Slavic castle on the mound in 11th century. The mound itself was inhabitated since the 3rd century B.C. Liszkiava is on the other side of Neman and few kolimetres north of Druskininkai. As for Merkine, it's even further north, there indeed was castle that was taken by Teuronic Knights but not in 1308 but in 1393 (or 1403 according to other sources) so it woudn't be that one, either. I don't think there was any castle in Druskininkai, as the area there is quite flat. Halibutt, could you check your sources, where did it come from ? --Lysy ^(talk) 07:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Name

Some famous Lithuanians vacationed in Zakopane, not a enough of a reason to add the Lithuanian name to it. Dr. Dan 14:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the town belonged to Poland before ww2. --Lysy^talk 09:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of tourists in 2007

As far as I can see the figure about tourists are wrong!

According to the statistic witch is refernd to, the is NOTHING like 1233,722 tourist from anywhere in Druskininkai, and btw, the statistics don't count the town, but the county. So I think, the number should be mooved to the county, and then even be corrected!

If I add all figures from the page 9 which is referd to I only reach to 795,586, and I am sure then I even count someone twice!--PerV (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just mark the numbers in the main pace, which you think are wrong, it will be more easily to spot and correct them. M.K. (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want me to mark it? Im not sure how you want it!--PerV (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus

Kazimier, please correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe Druskininkiai was given to the B.S.S.R. by the "Great Leader" for a month, i.e., September-October 1939. He then decided to cede it to the Republic of Lithuania some eight months prior to the annexation of Lithuania in August 1940. If this is the case I think this edit [1] and your edit summary is rather baseless. I'll wait for a few days for your reply before deleting it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Btw, love your user page.[reply]

It'a a well known fact, that Druskieniki (present Druskininkiai) was about 1 year (till autum 1940) an official part of Belarus (BSSR) [2] [3]. This is a formal indication, why belarusian name must attend at the article near russian and polish. Moreover, "Great Leader" didn't give the ethnic belarusian Druskieniki (for example, according to Yefim Karskiy and Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy) to Belarus, but take it away to Lietuva (LSSR). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimier, thanks for your input. As for "It's a well known fact", you know that's a difficult one. Not about the presentation of your "map" from 1903 or the other maps (the ones neglecting the toponym "Вільня", and showing "Вильнюс" as the capital of the L.S.S.R., after the annexation of Lithuania in 1940, not in 1939). Nor for bringing Yefim Karskiy and Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy, two prominent Soviet scholars (working under the auspices of the "Great Leader") who were both dead by the time period we're discussing. In any case the town's name was never "Галіткенікі". Furthermore, Вільня is where it is and is called Vilnius in the English speaking world and on English Wikipedia. Same goes for Druskininkai. You might be surprised to know that like you, I definitely oppose the concept of Lithuanian nationalistic POV pushing and agree that Wikipedia is not a place for Lithuanian chauvinism and nationalist historical myths to be perpetuated. I also believe, however, that it is neither the place for such behavior to be substituted with Belarusian nationalistic chauvinism or mythological fantasies either. Back to the subject. The "Great Leader" invited the Lithuanians to take control of Vilnius in October 1939 and if you say that the B.S.S.R. was in control of Druskininkai until the autumn when the "Great Leader" chose to dump Belarusian "control" of that city too, it's a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned. Happy editing. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like soviet scholars (incidentally, Yefim Karskiy and Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy created their maps before formation of the USSR) I can propose Jan Stankievič, which also consider this territory like ethnic belarusian. As for my opinion about chauvinism and nationalist historical myths I saw here many things, which can only be explained to them — begin from the names of lithuanian dukes Mindaugas etc., which you can't meet in any historical document, and ending complete identification historical lithuanians with modern baltic nation. I'm understanding that such mistakes is not only a problem of Wikipedia, but it's my duty to pay attention to this anywhere. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, it's not that I like or dislike Soviet scholars, just that I do not believe that many were at liberty to always express themselves in a completely "honest" manner under Stalin. Somewhat also the case during the Russian Empire, but less so. Plenty of other regimes can be included when analyzing their POV as well. I doubt very much that you accept Soviet maps as the final arbiter of territory that belongs to Lithuania or to Belarus. They changed as fast as the photographs of their airbrushed leadership after they became "persona non grata". So I wouldn't suggest the evidence with your maps to be all that convincing of an argument. Just understand that I'm not the author of the term Lithuanian or Ruthenian in the English language, just as you are not the author of the term Міндоўг. Nor can you produce any contemporaneous document using "Міндоўг" either. All that's rubbish. John maybe John, but John is also Jan, Johann, Jonas, Sean, Ivan, Juan, Jean, Hans, etc.,etc. It's really not about what you like or I like. Pretty simple. Also if you'd be so kind, I'd like your opinion on the etymology of the name Друскенікі of this supposed "Ruthenian" town. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the age of Russian Empire and USSR Belarusian, in contrast to the Lithuanians (about it writes Timothy D. Snyder at The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, 2003), didn't have any state support. So all that time the researches couldn't have falsified in their favor. Regard to the names I believe, if John in several languages was John and never Jonas, it's a rubbish to call him Jonas today. The name Druskieniki may actually have Baltic (that no the same with Lithuanian) origin, but most hydronyms and many place names (for example, Nemiga — river and ancient city near Minsk) in Belarus also have Baltic origin. And it doesn't mean that the whole Belarus once was Lithuanian. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that our discussion shouldn't suggest the whole of Belarus was once ethnically Lithuanian. I thought it is more specifically related to Druskininkai. If I'm not mistaken you seem to believe that Druskininkai is however an ethnically and historic part of Belarus. Interestingly you say that the city's name "may have Baltic" origin, which is not the same as Lithuanian origin. Maybe it's closer to Ruthenian or Belarusian origin? Like Kalinkavichy perhaps? I just read Snyder's book last week. I enjoyed it. Personally I think he puts forth his opinion too much, and is a little too subjective at times. One can glean whatever they want out of it. It's like with Norman Davies being used as a source on Wikipedia. When he supports a particular POV, Davies is great. When he supports another POV, all of the sudden he is not so great. And his being used a source is challenged as questionable. That's how it seems to work in this neck of the woods. Regarding your other point. Yes, I'm familiar with Belarus' plight during the interbellum, and its being a pawn of the U.S.S.R, the Second Polish Republic, and Nazi Germany. But don't take that out on Lithuania. From my perspective, both Belarusian Wikipedia and many articles concerning Belarus on English Wikipedia (and its other languages) need lots of improvement. Go for it. When you put a heading like "This user thinks that Wikipedia is no place for lithuanian (lietuvos) chauvinism & nationalist historical myths" at the heading of your user page, you demonstrate a very hostile and narrow minded perspective. It's unbecoming, and shows the lack of a desire to reach a consensus and camaraderie on these pages. Which is what Wikipedia needs especially concerning this part of Europe. So in a nutshell, it seems that some Belarusians feel that Lithuania appropriated Belarusian myths and since Lithuania was successful in creating a viable State during the interbellum and subsequently, the Belarusians want the myths back and this will make them successful too. Well, I'm all for everyone living happily and peacefully in the 21st century. Even on Wikipedia. I'm sorry you missed the point regarding John. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I believe that Druskieniki is an ethnically and historical part of Belarus and make reference to reliable sources. So I think, that this opinion has to reflected in the article. I understand that it's difficult to convince you, especially with my level of English. I agree with a fact that aggression isn't the best solution. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) Good to hear you say "that aggression isn't the best solution". So true. Speaking from past experience, I too have made an effort to tone down my "contributions" and "challenges" editing on here on Wikipedia. I would like to think that after awhile, although I was more like you are today, I came to a realization that not much was gained by insulting the people with a different viewpoint. Better to follow the WP procedures, although imperfect, because they allowed for a solution for many impasses. This wasn't because of some tactical consideration on my part, but because I understand that many editors had a national pride that they wanted to defend, and it got to the point that "an eye, for an eye, for an eye," would eventually leave everyone blind. Now back to your sourced belief that Druskininkai is ethnically and historically Ruthenian and by default Belarusian instead of Lithuanian. I'm interested to know where you draw the border between the two nations? Obviously not Dzūkija. Are Vincas Kudirka or Čiurlionis actually Belarusians? Is the border between the two nations on the shore of the Baltic Sea? What role did ethnic Lithuanians, ethnically Lithuanian by today's standards, actually play in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, if any, by your interpretation of history? If we're getting too OT here we can move this to our talk pages or other respective articles. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lachnovič provides no primary sources on the ethnicity of Druskininkai (actually called Druskinykai in local dialect) area. All sources are secondary ones and not really accurate and reliable. Being a local (as many generations of my ancestors) and well knowledgable on local history I can tell you that Druskininkai was completely insignificant area by the end XVIII century. It was a village of several houses belonging Pervalkas (Privalka, Przewalka) estate. Surnames of those inhabitans are pretty frequently found nowadays in the surrounding areas and Druskininkai itself (Suraučius, Dailydė). In XIX century situation has changed- the resort town officially established, it grew, population has changed- Polish, Russians and Jews dominated. However, the villages around remained Lithuanian (Švendubrė, Jaskonys, Mizarai, Vieciūnai, Gailiūnai, etc.). The nearest Belarussian/Polish villages and towns were Poreche and Privalka/Pervalkas/Przewalka. Przewalka was mixted, but towards the end of the XIX century Polish langugage and identification started to dominate. The town of Druskininkai was located in an area inhabited by Lithuanians and that is a primary reason why it was returned to LTSR in 1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.205.30 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Druskininkai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Snow Arena.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]