Talk:Shah

Median

Is not this word supposed to be Median? Ellipi (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore. For details see Rüdiger Schmitt's Old Persian dictionary (Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. 2014)

The Shahzada section...

I took a fresh look at the Shahzade section of this article.

No offense, but I think this section should be rewritten because it seems to have been written by someone for whom English is not their first language. While, in general, I don't regard that as a problem, in this specific case I do, because the idiosyncratic wording and grammar make the section less clear.

Shahzade (Persian شاهزاده Šāhzādé). In the realm of a shah (or a more lofty derived ruler style), a prince of the blood was logically called shahzada as the term is derived from shah using the Persian patronymic suffix -zāde or -zāda, "son, descendant"; see "Prince" article for other uses of the suffix.

current wording	my guess as to meaning
In the realm of a shah...	In countries ruled by a Shah...
or a more lofty derived ruler style...	???
a prince of the blood was logically called shahzada...	a male descendant of the ruler was called "shahzada".
the term is derived from shah using the Persian patronymic suffix -zāde or -zāda, "son, descendant"	In Persian the suffix -zāde or -zāda means son or descendant. So shahzada literally means "son of a shah.
see "Prince" article for other uses of the suffix.	Persian speakers had applied the suffix to other rulers, for instance Khan -- khanzada

i NEED MOR for my friends project I think the whole section is unclear because it is full of artifacts of being written by those who are not native speakers of English.

If I undedrstand the following passage it says that the sons of the ruler in Afghanistan was called a Shahzada, even though their father was called a "Malik", not a Shah.

Furthermore the title was also used for princes of the blood of a ruler who used an alternative royal style, e.g., the Malik (Arabic for king, so equivalent) of Afghanistan. In the Ottoman dynasty of imperial Turkey, it was part of two styles:

It seems to me that this passage argues for the Shahzada section of the Shah article being scaled back, with most of the material being moved to a separate article.

Where-ever the material is covered it needs references. Geo Swan (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC) In addition

• Well, indeed, this article, not only this section needs substantial modification and revisions AS WELL AS need for references. Again, what you stated in true but not only for this section! As you see, the whole article does not have references so, the focuse should not be on this section only! This section IS about shahzada and like many many articles, this section and this article needs work. This does not mean that should be deleted, although unreferenced material will be deleted and should, but since the whole article does not have any reference, we could give it some time. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

why was shahzadi deleted?!

this should be put back up. there is a section for shahzada, and not shahzadi. this can be seen as sexist to not include this term up while the male version is already up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.138.188 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Shahanshah has roughly corresponded to Persia"

What exactly is this trying to say? -

"The term shah or shahanshah has roughly corresponded to Persia"

The King's Peach (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the the quoted passage is trying to say "The terms "shah" and "shahanshah" have most commonly been known as the traditional titles of the monarch of Iran." I would also suggest edits that talk about the use of "shah" and "shahanshah" (not to mention titles such as "Khwarazmshah" and "Shirvanshah") for non-Iranian monarchs (Armenia, Georgia, the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, etc.). Nostalgia of Iran 13:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Shahanshah was brother of Saladin who was ruling Persia

Sarah Shaheenbaz Faizi (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Major Removals of material in last 90 Days

There has been a significant amount of cited content removed from this article in the last 90 days, and much of what has replaced it appears to be irrelevant or incorrect.

Among the many changes I have so far noticed the following:

- Removal of any references of the adoptation of the word Shah or Shahanshah by the emperors of the Indian Subcontinent - Addition of "Pakistan" and removal of India. Pakistan is a new country created in 1948, and it has never had its own Shah, or emperor. Part of Pakistan has historically been ruled either by Iranian Shahs or by Shahs of the Indian subcontinent.

If you have noticed other removal of information or inacurate revisions in the last few months please add them here, and I would recommend restoring cited material and removing irrelevant content.

ClassicHistory (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed false citation also used in other articles in Wikipedia

The editor had claimed that the Indian surname "shah" is not related to the Persian word, but is rather an etimological derivation of sadu. I have checked the given reference:

[[1]]

Which proves the editors claim about this etimology is false and the source makes no such claim. Xarhunter (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the word Shah

The lead in the article for now says

"Shah is a title given to the emperors, kings, princes and lords of Iran"

"It was also used by Persianate societies such as the rulers and offspring of the Ottoman Empire (Şah and Şeh), Mughal emperors of the South Asia, the Bengal Sultanate, and Afghanistan."

but Afghanistan still uses the word "Shah" and never stopped using it. So why are we using past tense for Afghanistan in the lead? Here is a Pashto dictionary (search the word king or Prince) [2] and here is the Dari (Persian dialect) dictionary[3].

Nobody contested its origin or whatsoever is just about the lead, Which now says it is still and only used in Iran. and using the past tense (like it is no more used) for Afghanistan. @LouisAragon:, @Wikaviani: Casperti (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The "past tense" is also used for Iran as Iran is not a monarchy today. As far as i know, Afghanistan is not a monarchy today either.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Shah means “Kings” or “leaders” But the Ottoman Empire never used the word “Şah” for thenselves They called themselves “Sultan” like other muslim leaders Sarah Shaheenbaz Faizi (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Generalisation about Shahanshah

Article reads 'In Iran (and the Greater Iran region) the title was continuously used; rather than King in the European sense, each Iranian ruler regarded himself as the Shahanshah'. Shahanshah has not been in continuous use, at least in an official capacity. Many Iranian monarchs did not take the title, eg the period between the Buyids and Ismail I. Many subsequent monarchs did not use the title officially either. So its neither 'continuous' or the case that 'each iranian ruler' considered himself such

Shah-e-shahan?

Why isn't a mention about this variant? Apparently appears on Nader Shah's coins. Spelled as شاه شاهان, @HistoryofIran: any idea? Beshogur (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Because it means King of Kings, so same as shahanshah, which is the common variant in English. HistoryofIran (talk)

Should we include in bold? Beshogur (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say no - lets stick to WP:COMMON NAME. HistoryofIran (talk)

Why alternative spellings are allowed tho? It's not that it's same spelling in Persian as well. Beshogur (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to add an alternative spelling that has zero importance/relevance and is not the common spelling in English. HistoryofIran (talk)

Ugh, I thought this was the Nader Shah article. Forget what I said. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)