Talk:Borjigin

A politician who did not to interfere in politics
I removed this as blatant anti-Cixi POV but it was good enough to preserve here: Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang "was an excellent politician who did not to interfere in politics, unlike the notorious Empress Dowager Cixi. However, when the conditions required, she rendered her efforts." —  AjaxSmack     23:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned
Why there are no links to such articles as Ashina or Descent from Genghis Khan? --Ghirla-трёп- 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern relevance
Since Mongols and Mongolians have never used surnames throughout history, this entire section was nonsense, despite the cited "sources". At best, the information given was a grave misunderstanding, at worst it was an elaborate hoax. I have rewritten it based on a source that actually knows what it is talking about. --Latebird 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

origins
I removed the whole section, as it looked like some fringe theory and unsupported by mainstream sources. It was added two years ago by an IP whose only other edit, on the same day, looks like exactly the same kind of conjecture. Yaan 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the passage has been re-added: Please provide mainstream sources that the name Borjigin derives from a prince/general that (if it can be confirmed to have existed at all) lived three unruly centuries earlier. I have seen the name interpreted as being derived from some duck species, but not from some Uighur prince. Yaan 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Boru really means wolf in old turkish so the story about the uyghur wolf prince sounds plausible. If the name of the family of Genghis Khan itself is turkish why is it so unbelievable that genghis khan may have turkic roots? Unless you deny the existence of a clan by the name of borjigin altogether. In a lot of sources the physical appearance of genghis khan is said to have been more european than that of other mongolians. This is in accordance with the uyghur/turkic roots theory. Also some of the initial tribes that were united under genghis khan were either turkic or mongolian-turkic mix and eventually the majority of genghis khan's army/empire was turkic so the history of the turks is intertwined with that of the mongols. We originated from the same people and region. I think you shouldn't delete information before you are sure that the information is incorrect. Don't let your nationalist feelings cloud your judgment. If you are going to delete everything that is not properly sourced you can delete most of whikipedia. Ibrahim4048 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not supposed about theories that sound plausible or are believable, it's about verifiable information. See also WP:VERIFY. In this special case, I find it highly implausible that a relationship can be reliably established between some person that lived (if it even existed) three centuries before Genghis. Those centuries saw the rise and fall of both the Kirgiz and the Kidan states in Mongolia, and between the fall of the Liao and the rise of Genghis Khan a century of chaos. But all that doesn't matter, all that matters is that you need some mainstream sources even (or especially) for what you deem plausible. There are tons of literature on Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire, so it should be possible to find something good, even in English.
 * Again, I don't care what 'bor' means in turkish (in mongolian it's "brown" btw, wolf would be 'chono', but that doesn't matter either). Nor do I care whether one can find some other words that sound similar to the other two syllabes (like 'jig' = "something" in modern Mongolian). I'm well aware that some of the tribes in the Mongolian steppes in the 13th century were turkic, but that doesn't mean Genghis was.Yaan 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Chingisid
I merged Borjigin with Chingisid, Chinggisid. Although, every Borjigin can't be counted as Chingisid, it is Mongolian Royal family, which was derived from Chingis Khaan's ancestors as you all know.--Enerelt (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is the optimal result. Although the two topics are closely related, they don't describe the same thing. You already noticed that there is only a partial overlap. --Latebird (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Borjigin
Does anybody knows the meaning of Borjigin?

I am very curious about the Etymology of Borjigin.


 * Bordjigin is just last name, clan name. Grammatically, it is genitive of the word Bordj which is the form of verb word Bordkh which means "to grow", "to expand", "to increase". So, Bordj means "grown", "increased", "became large". And, finally, Bordjigin means "one who belongs to grown up clan".2600:1004:B048:3D46:BCE9:1D97:6FC4:BC4A (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There are lots of theories around the term. I read that the western writers say that the Borjigin means blue spar color. However, there is also thought that it is derived from the Mongolian word, Boro, meaning brown.--Enerelt (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I read it's a kind of wild duck. Yaan (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wild duck. Sorry Yaan, I have never heard it before. But I read that it may be a gerfalcon. But most of early scholars believe this word is Turkic but not Mongolian. They say it means wolf.--Enerelt (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, seems like wild duck is a good candidate. From de Rachewiltz' translation of the Secret History, p. 238: "The etymology of the name Borjigin is uncertain. The unreliable interpretation given by Rasid (borjigin = 'man with dark blue eyes') accounts, through a further misunderstanding, also for the imaginary grey (pmo., mo. boro), or cat's eyes of Cinggis Qan, regularly ascribed to the conqueror by modern authors... More likely, borjigin derives from 'wild duck' + the suffic -gin (~ -kin)." — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Borjigin. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607003052/http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/5/names.html to http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/5/names.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Genghis Khan.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png

Aigle article
, the above article has no relevance to the article subject. Whether or not the claim was falsfied is irrelevant—the section is about the origin of the name. Obviously a story which involves a woman being impregnated by a dog or a shaft of light is made up (which incidentally makes the claim that "Italian historian Igor de Rachewiltz claimed that the Mongol origins of the early ancestors of Genghis Khan were animals" even weirder, ignoring the fact he's not mentioned in the article in the pages cited). The point is that there is no mention of the term "Borjigin" in the Aigle article, and that to draw a link between the two is WP:SYNTH. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are joking, but the cited part of the book is about the genealogy of the clan, how is it not related ? LothofOrkney (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it says absolutely nothing. A 14th century chronicler claims a mythical figure made something up; a modern historian claims a myth was a myth; another modern historian claims that a myth said something. The article says nothing about Rashid al-Din's explanation of "borčïqïn", but the text implies that it does. I see another editor has warned you for hounding, so let's not escalate this any further. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that you struggle to understand what the article is about but I agree that paragraph in itself is badly structured. LothofOrkney (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)