|WikiProject Russia / History / Human geography||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Belarus||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Origins of "Rus"
184.108.40.206 (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.220.127.116.11 (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.
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)
Actually, White = Western
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)
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
18.104.22.168 13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Same applies to Polish and Ukranian
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)
- Upon coming to this page i was looking for information on the losing side of the 1917 Russian civil war, not the archaic name for the current nation of Belarus. i'm not an editor but should there be a disambiguation or some further information separating the two.--EEE-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think all that has to be done here is to rename the article form White Russia to White Ruthenia (like Red Ruthenia, Black Ruthenia). The current name is so misleading Ales Hurko (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)