Talk:White Ruthenia
Page contents not supported in other languages.
![]() | Belarus Top‑importance | ||||||
|
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)[reply]
"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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It has a historical basis and the equitation is right. The Russian people were one ethnicity before 1917. The Russian people had 3 groups: White-Russians, Little-Russians, Great-Russians. Rus and Russia is basically the same. Same example with The Netherlands and Belgium (Flemish part) where they speak also Dutch and use the official Dutch language. The Netherlands and Flanders have different Dutch dialects. Such we also see in Germany where you have Low, Middle, High Germans living. Also in Poland you have Greater-Poland and Little-Poland with its small cultural, linguistic differences. The only difference between those countries is that they didn't suffer under the policy of bolshevism. Where the middle and higher class was deprived of its right and the culture of the land, workers, peasants began the Soviet state policy. This is how the forced Belorussification started in process.
Do you know about the existence of Alexander Guagnini. He was a writer, soldier, chronicler and historian who served the Polish king himself. Gwagnin is known for publishing the Latin book Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, quae Regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Masoviam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam... complectitur, usually translated as "A Description of Sarmatian Europe" (printed in Kraków, 1578), which contained descriptions of the countries of Eastern Europe (history, geography, religion, traditions, etc.).
There Moscovia was described as 'White-Rus' territory and he also described that a part of the Rus territories is divided and part of it is under the Polish power.
Ivan the great, Grand prince of Moscow who was also named Ruler of all Rus'. It is well known that his goal was to gather all the Russian lands from the yoke of Poland-Lithuania. Moscow Grand duchy was the last orthodox Christian nation standing and they wanted to free their christian Russian brothers who were persecuted under Polish catholicism.
Also the Lithuanian grand duchy had the full title of: Великое княжество Литовское, Русское, Жемойтское и иных. Velikoe knyagestvo Litovskoe, Russkoe, Zhemoitskoe i inih. Which means: Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia and Samogitia.
Till this day the language in Russia is known as 'Russkii Yazik', you don't call it Ruthenian language do you? The White-Russian or Belarussian language is called 'Belorusskii yazik'.
Until 1917, in all academic forms the terms were used, White-Russia, Russia, Little-Russia. Also on the maps and in academic circles.
What you call Ruthenia is just your Western way of Latinizing the word Russia.
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.
See: Cardinal points#Central Asia. bogdan | Talk 13:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I always understood. Likewise Golden Horde is Golden due to its geographic position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.139.216 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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"?
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."
"Because of its association with perceived Russian and Soviet imperialism, some people in Belarus consider the name derogatory"
146.175.100.109 13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same applies to Polish and Ukranian
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Rus is equal to Russia. Russia is called 'Rossiya' in Russian but the language is called 'Russkiy'. The language isn't called 'Rossiskiy'. They also speak about 'Ruskiy narod' which means Russian people.The White-Russian language is called 'Belorusskiy'.
Therefore there isn't a difference. You don't call Russian language Ruthenian or Rus language don't you?
(talk) Vladislav Nikolaevitch
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)[reply]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is misleading because it has no use of doing it. You don't call the language that Russian people speak (Russkiy) Ruthenian don't you?White-Russia is also the correct term.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weißrusslandyou can see it here--Venajaguardian (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an article about a geographical region, it needs a map. David Spector (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"White Russia" is a sensitive issue in Belarus, and could be seen as inappropriate. Unlike it, the term White Ruthenia does not suffer from such ambiguity.
I tried to delete this because its a biased comment. The majority of Belarussians see no problem in be calling White Russia since it's a correct historical term. And it's still used in many languages.Such as Dutch, German, French, etc...Also many Belarussians acknowledge the historical ties and culture with the Russian.
(talk) Vladislav Nikolaevitch 18 June 2016
The result of the move request was: page moved. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
White Russia → White Ruthenia – Consistency with other two contemporal territories Red Ruthenia and Black Ruthenia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Several articles link to the disambiguation page White Russia but may be intended for one particular meaning of the term. A group of us routinely tidy up such links, but we may have to ask for expert help in this case, as the differences between the meanings can be subtle. Any fixes you can make would be appreciated. Thanks, Certes (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...whole article needs reconstruction. "White Ruthenia" >> in latin "Ruthenia alba" was used for the Russian lands till old Muscovian Russian lands. --46.114.140.118 (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]