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
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 within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
The book "General Survey of Roads and Kingdoms" was written by Ibn Khordadbeh, another Persian scholar of 9th century CE, not by Estakhri. This was attested to in the article's cited reference, too. Hence, the paragraph's removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.203.33 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
issues of consistency arise when an Arab named person who wrote in Arabic is Persianized based on geographical considerations. FOr the interests of scholarly consistency, such a figure should be given the standard Arabic transliteration, Istakhri, not the transliteration used for modern Persian. This should be a general rule for all figures: if they wrote in Persian then by all means use the Persian transliteration of the Arabic script writing, but otherwise it is a scholarly nuisance and anonchronism to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.174.248 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
