Talk:Shah

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Western Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Afghanistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

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

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

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.

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[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shahanshah was brother of Saladin who was ruling Persia

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]