Talk:Shah

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

message: 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.
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.
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)
thread_title:  The Shahzada section... 

message: 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)
thread_title: why was shahzadi deleted?!

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Shahanshah has roughly corresponded to Persia" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major Removals of material in last 90 Days 

message: 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:
[]
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)
thread_title:  Removed false citation also used in other articles in Wikipedia 

message: 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)  and here is the Dari (Persian dialect) dictionary. 
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. ,  Casperti (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Usage of the word Shah