# Talk:King of Kings

Jewism? christianism? zionist ambitions? This article seems to need a good cleanup. If nobody else does it, I'll do it within the week. GregChant 18:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as the Judeo-christian ~subsection is concerned, I say: please do give it a go, I'm not entirely happy with it as it is! Fastifex 08:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and what's up with that "jewism" term? That sounds racist to me. --SaulPerdomo 06:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The stuff about "messianistic traditions" and "Zionist ambitions" did not make any sense whatsoever.  The reason I said that I clarified it is becuase I was thinking that the main point of that section was to point out that the phrase King of Kings was used in reference to Christ in the New Testatment.  The other stuff seemed to detract from that.  El Cubano 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please explain the "messianistic traditions" and "Zionist ambitions" section.  It seriously doesn't make any sense.  If it is that important, why is there nothing about Muslims and their "islamist traditions" and th/Users/student/Desktop/Late Antiquity.pageseir own ambitions?  Also, what are the verse references where Jesus says his realm is of this earth.  Where does he a preach a "moral" kingdom?  This section has an anti-Semitic feel to it and I think it may need to be tagged, POV, revised, cited, or removed. El Cubano 10:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
One quick note, just for clarification. In many languages (including Hebrew), there is no superlative. That is, there is no grammatical construction that simply means "greatest," "tallest," or, we might say, "kingliest." The way that these ideas are portrayed, then, is "great of the greats," "tall of the tall ones," or "king of kings." Thus, at least in that context (and probably in many other contexts), the origin of the term "king of kings" is not actually a king ruling over vassal states, but simply the Hebrew way of expressing the superlative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobjjohansen (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 

The article states that King of Kings is "conventionally (usually inaccurately) rendered as Emperor." Well, that would depend greatly on one's specific definition of the word Emperor, and the connotations that go along with it, right? Certainly, in the East Asian context, the terms used to refer to Emperors (皇帝, 天子, 天皇) and Kings (国王) are very important to the hierarchy of diplomatic relations, etc, and referring to a king as emperor or vice versa was a very big deal; the Japanese shogunate had to invent the term taikun (大君) in order to represent the shogun's power while definitively standing outside the Sino-centric system of Emperor-King (lord-tributary/submissive vassal) relationships. Also consider the fact that many Emperors throughout history were not imperialistic and did not maintain empires of the scale or scope of the Roman, Mongol, British, or Spanish ones, and that many European overseas empires, such as the British one, still had a King or Queen, not an Emperor.
In the European context, and more to the point in the global context as a whole, I really don't think it's fair to make this sort of blanket statement about what "Emperor" and "King of Kings" can or cannot denote (or connote) in all situations. Right? LordAmeth 13:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

any reason why the first link of the article "genitive case" leads to the page on arabic grammar?  It seems like most people wanting to folow that link and learn what "genitive case" means would be better served heading to Genitive case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfromtheprarie (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Great point, thanks! Done. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Hey Ichthy thanks for expanding this article. Thought I would help you out a bit;
- Mithridates I of Parthia was the first Arsacid ruler assume the title of shahanshah (take a look at the Coinage and Imperial ideology section). Regular use of the title started under Mithridates II though.
- The Hephthalites also laid claims to the shahanshah title during their zenith, perhaps you could add that as well?
- Just like the Parthians/Arsacids, neither the Buyids nor Ziyarids were Persian, I would personally swap Persian with Iranian in a lot of places to make it more historically accurate.
- The female variant of shahanshah in pre-Islamic Iran was banbishnan banbishn if you wanna add something about that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out! I've added the bit about Mithridates I, the pre-Islamic female variant of the title and fixed Iranian/Persian (I think). I couldn't find any source for the Hephtalites using the title themselves (though I did find one that stated that they sometimes settled Sasanian succession disputes to the title), do you have one? I tried to make the article as thorough and complete as possible, is there anything else missing? Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hm nevermind about the Hephthalite thing then. I'll see if I have something else regarding the king of kings title that can be used. EDIT: The Safavids restored the usage of shahanshah, not the Qajars [1] (mentioned in Safavid dynasty as well with citations). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! I've added it. Do you know if the dynasties between the Safavids and the Qajars (e.g. the Afsharids and the Zand) used "Shahanshah"? I haven't been able to find any references to them doing so but it seems a little bit strange that there would be long periods of time between each of the modern dynasties using it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The Zands didn't it seems (their founder even refused to use the title of king), but surely Nader Shah would have I assume? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep, looks like Nader Shah adopted it as well, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest adding a section dealing with the Palmyrene usage of the title. Information and sources can be found in the article of Odaenathus#King of kings.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added a section on Palmyra now, thanks for the heads up! Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:King of Kings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 11:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


### Basic GA criteria
Well written: the prose is clear and concise. 
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning"). 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations. 
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. 
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. 
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
No original research. 
No copyright violations or plagiarism. 
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. 
Neutral. 
Stable. 
Illustrated, if possible. 
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. 
Review under way. I'll use the above as a checklist. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This ticks all the boxes and it passes this review but I think a lot more work will be needed if it is to be proposed for FA. It is definitely GA-class, though, so well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through this one! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Houghton 1235 Timarchus.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I find this statement a bit dubious, considering Alparslan minted coin with the title shahanshah, and Uzun Hasan also uses it. What do you think? Beshogur (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

They did indeed. Tbf sources regarding this are hard to come by, I only just found out recently. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
If Alp Arslan used the title, Alp Arslan and the Seljuks should be mentioned. I, who wrote much of this, didn't know this so you're of course welcome to change stuff around and add it in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Aprender IDIOMA SUMERIO ANTIGUO Vocabulario básico LUGAL (𒈗) y símbolos cuneiformes ortográficos, U+12218 𒈘 LUGAL OVER LUGAL means "king of kings".
Should it be included in the article?
-- Error (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)