Talk:White Ruthenia: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 78.151.173.242 - "→Origins of "Rus": " |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Origins of "Rus"== |
==Origins of "Rus"== |
||
The belonging nowadays Belarus teritory to Kiev Rus doesn't mean that those lands were Ruthenian lands, like later Lithuanians ruled even Pskov doesn't mean that Pskov was the ancient land of Lithuania. In nowadays Belorussia lies the ancient lands of tribes of Balts Ostrogots and Lithuanians (who are half Osrogots and half Vesigots) even today call Belorussians Gudai or Gots. Belorussians never called themselves Ruthenians, like Ukrainians did. |
[[Special:Contributions/78.151.173.242|78.151.173.242]] ([[User talk:78.151.173.242|talk]]) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)The belonging nowadays Belarus teritory to Kiev Rus doesn't mean that those lands were Ruthenian lands, like later Lithuanians ruled even Pskov doesn't mean that Pskov was the ancient land of Lithuania. In nowadays Belorussia lies the ancient lands of tribes of Balts Ostrogots and Lithuanians (who are half Osrogots and half Vesigots) even today call Belorussians Gudai or Gots. Belorussians never called themselves Ruthenians, like Ukrainians did.[[Special:Contributions/78.151.173.242|78.151.173.242]] ([[User talk:78.151.173.242|talk]]) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
"the equation of Rus’ and Russia is controversial today and does not have any historical basis. " |
"the equation of Rus’ and Russia is controversial today and does not have any historical basis. " |
Revision as of 11:09, 11 January 2009
Origins of "Rus"
78.151.173.242 (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)The belonging nowadays Belarus teritory to Kiev Rus doesn't mean that those lands were Ruthenian lands, like later Lithuanians ruled even Pskov doesn't mean that Pskov was the ancient land of Lithuania. In nowadays Belorussia lies the ancient lands of tribes of Balts Ostrogots and Lithuanians (who are half Osrogots and half Vesigots) even today call Belorussians Gudai or Gots. Belorussians never called themselves Ruthenians, like Ukrainians did.78.151.173.242 (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"the equation of Rus’ and Russia is controversial today and does not have any historical basis. "
First of all, this statement is self-contradictory; the same proposition is described both as "controversial" (indicating dispute) and baseless (which indicates a resolution of the dispute). Following up the links, it would seem that the resolution is actually the opposite of what this sentence would indicate: that there is no doubt but that the "Rus" element in both "Russia" and "Belarus" come from the same word for an East Slavic people ancestral to both Russians and Belarusians.
Naive etymology
I suggest to remove the naive speculative hypotheses about the name: Baltic sea, hair, clothes.... Opinions? Mikkalai 16:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
...Removed. Mikkalai 23:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- There are a number of speculative hypotheses, although no conclusive documentary evidence has been found for any of them. One such theory is based upon the accepted fact that the Belarusian people are the descendents of both Slavs and Balts. The root "balt-" means "white" in the languages and dialects of the Baltic languages. Hence "Baltic Sea" (Balta jura in Lithuanian) literally means "white sea". Thus "Balta Rusija" could have been the original source of the name "Belarus", rather than a later secondary derivative from "Russia".
- Another theory suggests that the name may refer to the blond hair that many inhabitants of Belarus possess, much like Balts and Scandinavians. Still another theory is that Belarusians are named after the predominant colour of their traditional (uncolored linen) clothes.
- I don't think that this is so naive. There are peoples (Miao) who are named according to color of their clothes. So, this at least is plausible. Nikola 13:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some explanation of 'white' is necessary here. The Red Ruthenia page mentions that white means 'north' due to the faces of Svitovyd. I don't know if this is really likely but some attempt at explanation should be made. Malick78 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, White = Western
See: Cardinal points#Central Asia. bogdan | Talk 13:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Obsolete?
Contradiction in terms
The article states that "Many languages today continue to use this obsolete name when referring to Belarus". If the name is in use it cannot be obsolete. Did the author mean to write "In English this name is obsolete, however many other languages continue to use a literal translation of White Russia to refer to Belarus"?
White Russia still used
In English, he name "White Russia" is still used synonymously with Belarus (although less commonly). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 uses White Russia and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Ed 2004) describes the usage as "dated". I suggest that the article's second sentence would be improved by changing it to "In English the use of White Russia to refer to Belarus is dated, however many other languages continue to use a literal translation of White Russia to refer to Belarus."
- I think this is appropriate. Rmhermen 13:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Did you actually check the links? Both of them say: see Belarus. How is it supposed to justify the article's name? If both are synonims, the most widely used (Belarus) should be used, not the one supplied as a variant of the main name. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
White Russia = Belarus in Belarussian
"Because of its association with perceived Russian and Soviet imperialism, some people in Belarus consider the name derogatory"
- Bela= White
- Rus = Russian
146.175.100.109 13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Same applies to Polish and Ukranian
- Rus is not equal to "Russia", let alone "Russian". 92.36.9.90 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What to do with the article
This article is the fork of the Belarus article and should be merged there. The only difference between the two is that it uses an archaic name White Russia, not in use any more in respectable literature. The article should not be named thus. Moreover, we have Red Ruthenia, Black Ruthenia ... and all of a sudden White Russia? The article should be merged to History of Belarus or appropriate sections of Belarus article. Moreover this article is replete with original research and is without a single source to support any of the multiple erroneus statements in it. Are there any ideas as to what should be done with it? --Hillock65 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Moreover the term White Russia, can mean also Belaya Rossiya or White Movement, so I agree with you that this term here should be but a disambig page, there is a Name of Ukraine article, and Name of Belarus would do to explain the equally not-straightforward name of that country. --Kuban Cossack 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Great. Let's see if there any other ideas before we move with the reorganization. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)