Talk:Yuezhi

message: Using modern Korean reading for Central Asia-related terms is ridiculous. Korean reading is one of important sources to reconstruct ancient Chinese reading, but it has nothing to do with Yuezhi! Why don't you use reconstructed sounds? --Nanshu 01:00, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Korean reading

message: I propose a title change from Yuezhi to Rouzhi. In modern Mandarin the character "月" is pronounced yuè, and "氏" as shì; but when it comes to the phrase "月氏", the two characters should be pronounced as roù zhī, its ancient pronunciation. In this kind of situations where one character has two or multiple pronunciations, they are called "破音字". It should be noted that a certain amount of ordinary Chinese speakers do often mistaken in these pronunciations. Hence a change in the title should be done, either from the linguistics point of view or the historical one.--G.S.K.Lee 08:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The aknowledged name in English is definetely "Yuezhi", or sometimes "Yueh-Chi", which therefore should remain for the article name, but you are pointing to an interesting point of ancient phonetic that would deserve mention in the article. PHG 11:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobody can really tell how Chinese words were pronounced 2000 years ago. "Rouzhi" is the proper modern pronunciation of this kingdom, while "Yuezhi" is definitely a mis-pronounciation.  --Mongol 03:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rouzhi or Yuezhi, does anyone notice the similarity to the English word Gypsy? These people were probably also of the same stock as the Gypsies who migrated west to Europe. Anyway the radicals for "meat" and  "moon" are actually different. For the "moon" character or radical the two short horizontal lines in the inside are actually horizontal, ie like the equal sign =; whereas for "meat" the two short lines form a shape similar to a greater than sign, ie >. 86.176.116.67 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Huh? Since when does a surface similarity of two names in unrelated languages, and well over a thousand years apart, become 'evidence' that these two peoples are "probably also of the same stock"? What total nonsense! Please, this is an encyclopedia which attempts to present factual information - not a forum for unsupported flights of fantasy. Yours, John Hill (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change 

message: Why would anyone think that a phonetic change implies a semantic change? Just because "moon" used to be pronounced the way "meat" is now pronounced, doesn't mean that it used to signify "meat"! --Abou 22:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rouzhi or Yuezhi, does anyone notice the similarity to the English word Gypsy? These people were probably also of the same stock as the Gypsies who migrated west to Europe. Anyway the radicals for "meat" and  "moon" are actually different. For the "moon" character or radical the two short horizontal lines in the inside are actually horizontal, ie like the equal sign =; whereas for "meat" the two short lines form a shape similar to a greater than sign, ie >. 86.176.116.67 (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Huh? Since when does a surface similarity of two names in unrelated languages, and well over a thousand years apart, become 'evidence' that these two peoples are "probably also of the same stock"? What total nonsense! Please, this is an encyclopedia which attempts to present factual information - not a forum for unsupported flights of fantasy. Yours, John Hill (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rouzhi = "Meat People"?

message: mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton
Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125
Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations
François-X. Ricaut et al.
Abstract
The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.
...
The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population. 
...
The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).
...
The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.
AAPA 2004
East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.
B.E. Hemphill. 
The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.
Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.
Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples
xxxxxxxxx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showbird13 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Judging dead people by appearance is not alway accurate

message: (Sigh) This page is starting to look like a repeat of Elam with warring over date formats...  Again we see the same bogus claims from the crowd that favors the cumbersome BCE instead of the recognizable BC, that "BCE was the original format for this article"...
Folks, that's what article histories are for.  Anyone who says BCE was the "original format" either hasn't done the research into the article history, or is just plain fabricating.  From September '03 (when the article was created) to April '04, the only dates that appeared anywhere in "Yuezhi" were all BC.  Following that, there was a "mixed" format, as someone added some BCE dates later on without changing the original.  Since then there have been several flips back to the original BC format, lasting anywhere from an hour to two months before getting flopped back to BCE.  You might come up with all kinds of interesting arguments for why you think BCE looks prettier, or is more "politically incorrect" than plain old BC, or whatever.  But "We were here first" ain't one of them. Codex Sinaiticus 13:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh indeed. I thought we were meant to be writing an international encyclopaedia for an international audience - most of whom are not already experts in what they are looking up. We really should adapt our language to suit that audience - and not just in choosing BC over BCE. Everytime someone voices the "let's go with the original editor" argument, it means they again are not thinking "how do we best convey this to our audience", and that's true regardless of whether they correctly identify what the original form was or not. In this case, from what Codex writes, at least they appear to have shot themselves firmly in the foot for this article and we can go back to the original (and globally understood) format, jguk 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again... 

message: Hi! Well, here is my personal spin on the old argument about whether to use the so-called "Christian Era" or the more neutrally-charged Common Era - please see the article on the subject before you set about changing things. It was not forced on people by "the usual small-but-very-vocal group of God-killing "progressive" troublemakers". Quite the reverse, in fact is the case. the use of the so-called "Christian Era" has been forced on non-Christians. 
Why should anyone who is not a Christian be made to use an era in which dates are referred to as BC = "before Christ" and AD = Anno domini = "Year of our Lord"? Here are several reasons I prefer the use of BCE and CE: 
1. It does not seem seem appropriate to use a Christian-based era to date events in a country which is almost totally non-Christian. This is rather similar to dating events in, for example, Roman history in the Hegira era - 622 CE (or AD) marking the first year of the Islamic calendar, or 1 AH (anno higirae)]. It would be surprising to me if Christian Italians (and probably other Christian groups) did not complain if someone started doing this. 
2. Several Muslim, Jewish and Chinese scholars have complained to me about the use of the "Christian Era" for dating, and preferred the use of the "Common Era". some of them have suggested to me that I use it in my writings, especially as it has now become pretty standard in academic literature.
3. The use of the "Christian Era" was introduced around the world by European imperial powers who made a point of ignoring local eras (such as the Saka Era in India or the Hejira Era in Muslim countries) and substituting their own era and system of dating on their colonies and in the scientific and historical literature.
4. The so-called "Christian Era" is misleading anyway as almost all scholars - including Christian ones - now agree that it is most unlikely that Jesus was born in 1 AD. But, because the "Common Era" has been decided to start in 1 AD, and this is just a convenient decision, it does not imply any particlar accuracy in relation to historical events and does not carry with it religious or imperialistic overtones.
I hope that explains my decision. I don't, myself, feel very strongly about the use of one over the other (and it is very easy to get used to both - as they are so similar), but I do think it best not to unnecessarily annoy people of other cultures and faiths. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably regret weighing into this, but: BCE/CE is just BC/AD with the serial numbers filed off.  It's basically the same thing, and just as much (in my opinion "not at all") "cultural imperialism" to use it for non-European events.  It is however, universally understood (I don't see anyone advocating that all articles should be dated according to the traditional local calender), and I don't know of any universal, non-cultural calender that could be used instead (apart from perhaps Before Present, but that would cause all sorts of other problems).  If the Chinese, Arabic, and Hebrew wikipedias want to use their own calanders, then that's fine, but I don't see anything wrong with the English wikipedia using the traditional English dating system.  Wardog (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the "Common Era"

message: According to WP:ATT unsourced material may be removed by any editor. The burden in on the editor inserting the material to provide references. It would greatly improve the credibility of this article if it were properly sourced. As it is the article seems quite messy and hard to read. Sincerely,  Mattisse 13:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of  marks virtually everywhere throughout the article seems rather exagerated (vandalism?). I would recommend such symbols to be introduced with moderation at the really critical parts of the article needing reference. PHG 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Footnotes for approved ways of footnoting articles. Also, see Bart King, today's Feature Article as an example, although the subject is a sports figure so there are fewer areas where verification is required. Examples of a well documented historical articles are Hoysala architecture and History of Poland (1945–1989). It would benefit the article if the footnotes were more comprehensive and the format improved. Jimbo added a POV tag on an article recently because of a sentence that he disagreed with in the intro that was not sourced.  As you probably know, Wikipedia has become much more strict on the issue of correct sourcing. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of article is unsourced 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Dear Barefact and Eiorgiomugini: As far as I can see, there is no need for an argument here at all. The quotes from Zuev contain Chinese words in a Russian system of transcription. There have been at least 16 different systems of transcriptions from Chinese into European languages that I am aware of. That was one of the main reasons why the Chinese, soon after the Communist takeover, tried to standardise the transcriptions with a new one known as Pinyin. This is the system the English Wikipedia now tries to make standard - although the Wade-Giles system (commonly in use in the English-speaking world until recently - and still in use in Taiwan, (actually it is less and less used there now) and quite similar to the defunct French EFEO system), is still acceptable.
However, I believe it is a good idea for the sake of clarity when translating passages into English for the Wikipedia to convert other systems of transcriptions of Chinese words into Pinyin.
None of these systems of transcriptions into Roman script are very accurate and none of them are much use at all in trying to understand ancient pronunciations. 
There have been several attempts by eminent scholars (especially Karlgen and Pulleyblank) to recreate the sounds of ancient - mainly by comparing lists of ancient rhymes or checking what Chinese characters ancient scholars used to try to represent foreign sounds with (especially in the translations of Buddhist works from other languages). 
However, none of the attempts to go back much before the Tang period can be considered very reliable (although they still can give valuable clues when trying to recreate the derivation of ancient foreign names). In all these cases of reconstructed ancient sounds it is probably easiest to use the symbols of the authority you are quoting from or symbols from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).
I hope this answers some of the valid concerns each of you seem to have. If I can help with any other related issues please let me know. Best wishes to you both, John Hill 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear John Hill and Eiorgiomugini: Sorry for a very slow response. I agree with objective of consistent language and a WP convention of using Pinyin for transcribing Chinese characters, and at the same time there is a need to communicate with the rest of the English-speaking world which uses differing spellings and, especially young people searching for references may know other terms and not know the WP convention. While Pinyin may be used in the title and body of the article,  suggests that the first sentence contain equivalent names, it is a legitimate way to include alternate names. Following the principle of inclusion, rather than exclusion, and adding  equivalent names is consistent with the Pinyin convention and uniform language of the article. A reasonable and simple method to evaluate the use of a term is to google it. Inclusion would also bring the article to the attention of those who google for references. I hope we can reach a consensus on inclusion of alternate terms, in a WP spirit. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanisations

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Dear editors, the following is a quotation from Yu.Zuev's (2002) "Early Türks: Outline of history and ideology",  , p.13. In the introductory section, that recounts what is well established, it reads: 
::Prior to the end of the 3rd century BC, the dominating force in the eastern part of Eurasia was the "state" confederation of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes dominated by Uechji (Pinyin Yuezhi‎) tribe . The borders of this confederation can be outlined only conditionally. From the vague records of the later time, its southeast limits were at the left bank of the river Huang He from the headwaters before the northern bend to the south. The border further went to the north, covering western and eastern slopes of the Great Khingan. At the northern extremity it turned to the west, from Northern Mongolia and Southern Baikal area to the Sayano-Altai mountains. It included tribes of different origin, various languages and anthropological shape, and a non-uniform cultural and economic condition. The native territories of the Uechji were lands from the Nan Shans mountains in the south to the Altai in the north.
::The memory of Uechjies (Pinyin Yuezhi‎) in the Altai survived as a group of Pazyryk kurgans with fabulous funeral inventory, which remains for decades a research subject for different scientific specialties. Chronologically, the first of them are dated by the 5th century BC (A Yu. Alekseev et al. C14 dating testifies to much earlier period - Translator's Note). The arrival of Uechjies in this region, according to linguists, belongs to the period not later than 7th-6th centuries BC. Other scientists, deeming them Tochars and from the archaism of the many elements in the monument language of the Tocharian writings (end the 1st millennium AD) in the Eastern Turkestan, are inclined to date the beginning of their movement from the Asia Minor to the east by the 2nd millennium BC. The presence of Tochars explains the sharp change in quality in the art of Bronze Epoch, and introduction of wheeled transport in China during the In epoch (13th-11th centuries BC). The presence of Tochars also explains the arrival in China of a foreign goddess cult "Mother-queen of the West" (Ch. Si-van-mu), who lived on the top of the Kuenlun mountains.
::Anthropologically (Fig. 1), the Pazyrian Uechjies were a mix of predominantly Europoids with a minority of Central Asian Mongoloids. The Sünnu (Huns) tribes, thought of as Mongoloid racial type, started to consolidate and threaten the borders of China, being in political dependence from Uechji. How this dependence was expressed is not known. The annals only inform about a system of hostages from the dependent tribes at the horde of the Uechji ruler. Such hostage was Maodun, a son of the first Sünnu tribal ruler Touman."
Before I start inserting bits and pieces, I would like to hear your opinions. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of origin of the Yuezhi 

message: As far as I am aware the characters 月 and 肉 are not interchangeable as parts of pictograms or anything else for that matter. The reference used for the source, i.e. the Chinese Wikipedia article 月氏, does not support the assertion made - the section is titled 月氏的“月”字读音问题 which means "Pronunciation of the character "月" Issue" and discusses how different dictionaries treat the pronunciation in this context not the characters themselves.
Philg88 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The article currently contains a claim that Yuezhi was pronounced something like "Tok Ar" (I am not familiar with the notation but presume this is an approximation) and identified with the Tocharians, and elsewhere some rather jarring notes about how "Yuezhi/Rouzhi" is not how the name was pronounced in ancient times. I would say the claim requires better sources because:
#The only source for the "Tok Ar" pronunciation is via a footnote and appendix in one source
#The claim seems novel. While claiming that "Yuezhi" is a mispronunciation of "Roushi" or vice versa seems at least plausible, "Tok Ar" seems to vary hugely from either of the recorded pronunciations.
#The link to Tocharians suggests, to me, that this "Tok Ar" reconstruction is a post facto rationalisation derived from that identification.
#There are additional prima facie difficulties with the theory. Apart from the most common characters 月氏, the subject has also been identified as 禺氐, 禺知, 禺氏, all of which are pronounced somewhat similarly to Yuezhi, but nothing like Tok Ar. The "Tok Ar" theory would require not one but two common Chinese characters to have changed their ponunciations in completely alien ways.
If the "Tok Ar" theory is only a hypothesis and not a widely accepted position, then it should be presented as such, and not as fact (which is how it is currently presented).
Perhaps the editor who originally added the reference could elucidate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a proposal by Christopher Beckwith, which I hope is clear now.  Kanguole 13:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tok Ar" theory needs better sources 

message: "were an ancient Indo-European people. They are believed by most scholars to have been an Indo-European people[6]"  Does Roux list the scholars that support this viewpoint?  If not, it's weasel wording.
71.163.114.49 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I agree. Most scholars excludes Chinese scholars. This unreliable source should be removed.QN35max (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  internal inconsistency 

message: Copyright might be a problem, but I think we should try to replace the drawing of the "Head of a Yuezhi warrior" with an original photograph.  It seems to be based on the sculpture shown here (black and white) and here (colour, 6th image down).  Neither show the blue eyes in the drawing.  (The linked text here says some of the statues had blue eyes, but that particular one doesn't appear to, so showing it as such is misleading).  Iapetus (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree both that it should be replaced, and that finding a replacement we can use will be hard.  A further problem is that we don't seem to have a well-sourced description for this object.  Kanguole 13:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of a Yuezhi warrior 

message: Migration and Settlement of the Yuezhi-Kushan: Interaction and Interdependence of Nomadic and Sedentary Societies
Xinru Liu
Journal of World History
Vol. 12, No. 2 (Fall, 2001), pp. 261-292
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20078910
Page Count: 32
Rajmaan (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: I saw on the talk page this identification of  Pulleyblank supported by Yury Zuev : 
The Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-  tie < uti
the Utigurs were tribe of European Huns. Is this possible? Someone to share some information?
Crusador2000 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to European Huns 

message: In reply to the query above by: Sabir Hun
The Yuezhi are nowadays usually considered to have been a confederation of a number of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes probably made up of more than one language group, and possibly of more than one ethnic background.
:I will include here some brief notes I wrote on the origin of the Yuezhi for the second edition of my book: Through the Jade Gate: China to Rome, Vol, I, (2015), pp. 327-328. 
:I have included references to the works of a few of the many scholars who have discussed this contentious issue over the years. I have only included ones who have written in English to make it easier for WP editors to check.
:I will give a short list of references to their work at the end of my notes in case any of you want to follow them up further. Here is my summary of the subject:
“For over a century there have been arguments about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Da Yuezhi (大月氏), Kushans (貴霜), and the Tochari, and there is still little consensus. 
:	“Another group of early Xinjiang inhabitants appears in Chinese sources of the second century BCE as the Yuezhi (Yueh-chih). The identity and movements of this group have posed one of the great questions of ancient Central Asian history: who were the Yuezhi originally, and what eventually became of them? Many scholars believe the Yuezhi and the Tokharians may be one and the same people. Mallory and Mair argue that the ancestors of the Yuezhi lived first in the region of the Altai mountains and Yenesi River basin, where they formed what is known as the Afansevo slab-grave culture, before migrating south to Gansu and Xinjiang; A.K. Narain, on the other hand, suggests the Yuezhi may have been indigenous inhabitants of the region around Dunhuang and the Qilian (Ch’i-lien) Mountains of Gansu long before they enter historical accounts―there is a continuous cultural tradition in this area west of the Chinese central plains from as early as can be ascertained archaeologically. In any case, the earliest of the Tarim mummies―that is, the Bronze and Iron Age inhabitants of southern Xinjiang―may have been the ancestral or proto-Yuezhi.” Millward (2007), Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang. James A. Millward. Columbia University Press, New York, p. 14.
:	“The ethnic origin of the Yuezhi is unknown, and there is even no firm evidence as to their relationship with the various ethnic groups mentioned by Classical sources. We are neither certain about the exact route followed by the Yuezhi. What is clear, however, is that the trek of the Yuezhi from Inner Central Asia to the banks of the Amu Darya brought about an avalanche of other migrating tribes. Waves of migrants penetrated from the north down onto the plains of Bactria. Most of them, including the Sakaraukai and the Saiwang, were descendants of the Scythians and Iranians who had remained in Central Asia while their kinsmen moved south centuries earlier. Others, including the Yuezhi, may have belonged to other ethnic groups. We simply do not know.” Vogelsang (2002), The Afghans. Willem Vogelsang. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford, pp. 137-138. 
Some scholars claim the Yuezhi were mainly of Caucasoid origin, others Mongolic, yet others suggest they were a confederation of tribes of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. Some believe they originally spoke a “Tocharian” language, and others that they spoke an eastern Iranic or proto-Turkic language, or a mix of languages. Even the connection between the Da Yuezhi and the later Great Kushan kings is contested. 
	For further discussions of the origins of the Yuezhi and their migrations, see: Benjamin (2007), pp. 1-44; Mallory and Mair (2000), esp. pp. 94-99; Yu (1998), esp. pp. 47-66; Enoki, et al. (1994), pp. 171-189; Xu (1996), pp. 2-3; 272-273; Maenchen-Helfen (1945), p. 80, n. 110; Brough (1970b), pp. 87-88; Sims-Williams (undated), p. 345; Zuev (2002), pp. 10, 21, 23, 29-30, 33-34; Vigne (1842), p. 362; Laufer (1917), pp. 8-9; Franke (1916/1918), p. 84.  
	
References
Benjamin (2007): The Yuezhi: Origin, Migration and the Conquest of Northern Bactria. Craig G. R. Benjamin. Silk Road Studies XIV. Brepols, Belgium. 
Brough (1970b): “Nugae Indo-Sericae.” John Brough. In: W. B. Henning Memorial Volume. Editors: Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch. London, 1970, pp. 81-88;
Enoki, et al. (1994): “The Yüeh-chih and their migrations.” K. Enoki, G. A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary. HCCA Vol. II, pp. 171-189. 
Franke (1916/1918): “Einige Bemerkungen zu F.W.K. Müllers ‘Toχrï und Kuišan (Küšän)’.” Otto Franke. In: Osteasiatische Zeitschrift, Fünter und Sechster Jahrgang, Berlin, pp. 83-86;
Laufer (1917): The Language of the Yüe-chi or Indo-Scythians. Berthold Laufer. Chicago. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, pp. 3-14. Reprinted in: Kleinere Schriften von Bethold Laufer. Teil 2: Publikationen aus der Zeit von 1911 bis 1925. Hartmut Walravens (ed.). Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden. 1979, pp. 1107-1118]
Maenchen-Helfen (1945): “The Yüeh-chih Problem Re-examined.” Otto Maenchen-Helfen. JAOS, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun. 1945), pp. 71-81;
Mallory and Mair (2000): The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. J. P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair. Thames & Hudson. London; 
Sims-Williams (undated): ): “Bactrian Language.” N. Sims-Williams. In: Encyclopaedia Iranica, pp. 344-349. Downloaded from: http://www.iranica.com/articlenavigation/index.html on 20 April 2007;
Vigne (1842): Travels in Kashmir, Ladak, Iskardo, the Countries Adjoining the Mountain-course of the Indus, and the Himalaya, North of the Panjab. 2 Vols. Godfrey Thomas Vigne. H. Colburn, London;
Yu (1998): A Study of Saka History. Taishan Yu. Sino-Platonic Papers No. 80. July, 1998. Dept. of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Pennsylvania;
Xu (1996): “The Tokharians and Buddhism.” Xu Wenkan, In: Studies in Central and East Asian Religions 9, pp. 1-17 (1996). Downloaded on June 14, 2003, from: http://61.54.131.141:8010 /Resource/Book/Edu/JXCKS/TS010057/0001_ts010057.htm; 
Zuev (2002): Rannie tyurki. Ocerki istorii i ideologii. Üry Aleksey Zuev. Daik-Press, Almaty, Kazakhstan. In Russian. English title: Early Türks: Essays of History and Ideology. (Draft translation by Norm Kisamov).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hill (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The Yuezhi

message: I have again reverted this addition, because it is speculation, its connection with the Yuezhi is tenuous (Li Bai lived in the 8th century), and it is offtopic for a section about the Yuezhi in "Sima Qian and the Book of Han".  Kanguole 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horses paragraph 

message: I have again reverted the addition of Tocharian to the infobox.  The three books linked are all references to Pulleyblank's suggestion that the Yuezhi originally spoke Tocharian.  However, this is not widely accepted accepted, and Pulleyblank himself said (in "The peoples of the steppe frontier in early Chinese sources", 1999, p. 52), "Direct linguistic evidence for this, or any other, identification of the Yuezhi language is admittedly slight."  Such speculative identification belongs in the "Proposed links to other groups" section, not in the infobox.  Kanguole 23:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tocharian 

message: The name is Rouzhi, not Yuezhi. --Chinyen Lu (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinyen Lu This just shows the English language scholarship on Yuezhi is fundamentally flawed, down to the most basic things such as pronunciation of the word.QN35max (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Hi:
The entry is Yuezhi, but it should be Rouzhi. I made almost 140 changes from Yuezhi to Rouzhi, but could not edit the Title.  It's still Yuezhi, which is incorrect.  Can anyone help?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmhu2000 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to change the title, the process is described at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  However, this may not be successful, because these people are not called Rouzhi in the English-language literature.  For the same reason, I have also reversed your name changes in the article.  The modern Chinese pronunciation of Ròuzhī is mentioned within the article.  Kanguole 02:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should English literature be considered reliable sources for the Chinese Rouzhi / Yuezhi?QN35max (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."  Kanguole 18:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot Edit the Title 

message: I have reverted the addition of Beckwith's "Old northern Chinese" reconstruction of 月氏 as Tokwar-ke as undue weight to fringe material. Reviews of Beckwith's book are heavily critical of his linguistic speculations and his tendency to present controversial ideas as consensus positions. As Hitch says of the relevant appendix, "In each section his arguments partly rely on idiosyncratic forms which he claims to have established in other places, so that their plausibility is hard to verify." In this case Beckwith is proposing a reading *tokwar of 月, which was ngjwot in Middle Chinese and usually reconstructed as *ŋʷjat in Old Chinese, citing another article where he reconstructed it as *nokwet. Kanguole 12:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Thanks for the heads-up! पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beckwith's reconstruction 

message: These people were followers of Buddhism, not that Hinduism did not exist at that time, all the gods of Hinduism were the gods of Buddhism. Mohit atulkar (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was no Hinduism in that time