Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Al-Biruni. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe that the precision of his measurement of the Earth's radius is vastly overstated. The original proposal for al-Biruni's measurement comes from an article entitled, "A newly discovered book of al-Biruni, "Ghurrat-uz-Zijat' and al-Biruni's measurements of Earth's Dimensions," by Samad Rizvi in Al-Biruni Commenorative Volume, Proc. of the Intl. Congress, Hakim Said Ed (1973) pp. 605-680.

Rizvi says to have found a previously unknown manuscript - his introductory note says "The Arabic Manuscript of al-Biruni's 'Ghurrat-uz-Zijat' was discovered by me in the year 1959 AD and I had obtained its photo-copy from India with great difficulties..." Rizvi goes on the analyze the measurement in this manuscript.

There are several problems, which are articulated in a chapter in the History of Cartography, Vol. 2, book 1 by Raymond Mercier on Islamic Geodesy. He analyzes Razvi's claims and finds that it attribute far greater accuracy than could have been possible. Most notably, the height of the mountain seems to be incorrect in al-Biruni's account. Secondly, the precision of measurement is inconsistent with instruments of the time. Third, the atmospheric corrections, which were unknown to al-Biruni are quite large compared to the actual measurement. Without an adequate theory of atmospheric refraction, it's impossible to obtain anything close to the claimed precision.

This kind of measurement was considered by Jean Picard in the 17th century, and deemed unusable because the accuracy was destroyed by the effects of atmospheric refraction. The article as it now stands is misleading to my mind and should be revised on this point.

John Huth (Prof. of Physics, Harvard University) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHSDad (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.

The article's claim of accuracy is seriously misleading. It has been known for centuries that the effect of terrestrial refraction significantly distorts the "dip" of the horizon. Observations of this type made without some measure of terrestrial refraction (which Biruni did not have) would typically yield a radius of the Earth about 1000km too large on average, regardless of the observer's height (up to several kilometers altitude), and, in addition, that error would be dependent on atmospheric conditions, specifically the temperature lapse rate. Any close match between Biruni's estimate and the known radius of the Earth, assuming it exists, has to be considered little more than a lucky accident.

For detailed discussions of this issue, visit the "NavList" community's discussion forum at fer3.com/arc and look for messages in December, 2010 and January, 2011 with Biruni in the subject.24.148.18.151 (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Like so many other Islamic-type chappies edited by Jagged, he seems to have discovered pretty well everything. Is this plausible? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No one? This looks worse on a second reading William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed this entire section [1] (yes, I know, there is another one with the same name). It has no refs apart from: Boris Abramovich Rozenfelʹd, A History of Non-Euclidean Geometry, trans. Abe Shenitzer, Springer (1988), ISBN 0-387-96458-4, p. 127. and although I haven't read it, it is pretty clear that non-E geometry is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Oh, and its Jaggedese [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And now I've removed the other section [3]. It was even worse, though thankfully shorter. Al-B did not estimate the acceleration of the Earths rotation, indeed it is vastly improbable that the concept had even occurred to him. As the reference says, if you actually read it [4], Al-B was just finding the locations of some cities. But if you go back and look at his data very carefully, making account of refraction which he was unaware of, then from now you can look at the acc of the earths rot William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 469 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd: 39 edits). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. For this reason I restored contents to the last pre-Jagged85 version, that is 17 March 2007, with some modifications. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

For this diff, could you quote the source, please? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. On page 10 of the cited source, the author comments on a reference he listed:

> Al-Burni, Kitab fi'l-Hind: Alberuni's India. 2 vols. Edited and Translated by Edward Sachau. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench and Trubner, 1887–1888.

"Al-Biruni's remarkable description of early 11th-century India, which led to him being called the founder of Indology and the first anthropologist. Text is available online".

Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If I understand you correctly, the ultimate source is from the years 1887–1888 and this one source, you suggest, is enough to call him in the infobox "Founder of Indology"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Powder Ma (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 April 2011

Al-Biruni's article in the The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (just added to Further reading) also states that "His studies on India resulted in his masterpiece called India, completed in 1030. With this book, Bīrūnī well deserves to be called “the first Indologist” in the modern sense of the word.". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wiqi55. It would be nice to have that added to the article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the publication date of the translation of Al-Birun's 11th-century work has any relevance here. The statement was appropriately attributed to Robinson's work that was published very recently (2010), in fact Robinson affirms both titles that appears to have been described by others. I don't think any WP policy was violated here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM may I remind and we do not do WP:synthesis. I have responded to other points just above, but want to address the last point mentioned in light of wikipedia rulers. Anything claiming that Biruni is not a native CHorasmian-Iranian/Persian is undo weight. The claim is that:

• Scholars use "Persian" or "Iranian" in the geographical sense (similar to how sometimes they call every Islamic scholar "Arab"). The sources you keep bringing up do not engage with previous scholarship on the subject, and do not show any evidence for such claim. I prefer leaving out his ethnicity altogether (i.e., just Khwarizmian). But since you insist on having it, then we must present all sides..."

Response:

• Complete WP:OR and violation of WP:WEIGHT in this case. You have one website with a false claim from a local scholar of a regional country who in the end does not make a 100% claim (he is unsure). I have dozens of Western sources. By wikipedia, the website source you mentioned, since it is not even making a firm claim and since it is making a false statement with regards to Biruni (where does Biruni mention his mothertongue is not Persian/Arabic?), is undo weight.
• See WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" (That is what is done with Iranian Chorasmian). "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" (well actually, you only have one website source, which by itself is not even 100% sure and it is not a "significant minority"). c) "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. "
• Sayinli who in the end fails to adopt a 100% firm view falls under C besides the common Wikipedia ettique that we do not quote scholars from the region who live under nationalist regimes when it comes to controversy, and we seek Western sources. Also he is a deceased scholar and now you would need commonly referenced sources either citing him or making similar statements (of course Western sources).
• In Russian wikipedia due to too much nationalist nonsense, only Western sources (excluding Soviet/Russian but including those of Japan, New Zealand and Australia) are allowed on anything like this. This general policy is mostly followed by wikipedia users from the region as well in English wikipedia.
• Now to go to your other point:"So far, only Sayılı/Togan has devoted any efforts to the subject..".. Togan is taken to be unreliable on this matter vis-a-vis Bosworth (and I do not even know what Togan has stated), and Sayinli has no firm viewpoint. But your claim is false, since dozens of easily available sources that use Iranian do not need to study the issue when the author (Biruni) has clearly stated his native language is Khwarizmian. On the other hand, the website source you brought has not mentioned the fact that Biruni stated his native language as Chorasmian. So much for studying the issue in detail when the author fails to mention that Biruni claimed his native language as Khwarizmian! Heck if we had such a statement from every scholar in the past, then these silly nationalist games would have already ended. Thankfully, Biruni at least makes it clear. We cannot add to this article "One Turkish scholar by the name Sayinli however believes Biruni might have been Turkish". That is a WP:WEIGHT violation.

Now to get to the other point and why it is WP:OR:

• Scholars used to use "Arab" as a term for Muslim, not a geographical sense and some still do. But that is not the case when it comes to classical scholars such as Biruni, since at this time, the modern citizenship "Iranian" did not exist. Rather Iranian/Persian are meant in the ethnic sense. Indeed as Frye notes: "KHwarazm was not under Sassanian rule, but, as mentioned was ruled by a local dynasty which had long ruled over the land. If we believe Al-Biruni, the most significant ruler in history of the dynasty was a certain Afrigh.." (R.N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", 2000, Phoenix Press. pg 46).

As per "Iranian", the region of CHorasmia was far away from modern Iran. So your claim makes no sense. Furthermore, these scholars are discussing ethnic origin and not geography. Or else if they had doubt about Biruni's background, they would use "Muslim". You only have one website source (btw Togan is already dimissed by Bosworth), who falsely attributes a quote to Biruni which he never made "About mother-tongue". The clearest statement we have is from Biruni itself (which you have ignored) where he clearly states: "And if it is true that in all nations one likes to adorn oneself by using the language to which one has remained loyal, having become accustomed to using it with friends and companions according to need, I must judge for myself that in my native Chorasmian, science has as much as chance of becoming perpetuated as a camel has of facing Kaaba."" [5]. This quote is also mentioned in

• L. Massignon, "Al-Biruni et la valuer internationale de la science arabe" in Al-Biruni Commemoration Volume, (Calcutta, 1951). pp 217-219.: In a celebrated preface to the book of Drugs, Biruni says: It is through the Arabic language that the sciences have been transmitted by means of translations from all parts of the world. They have been enhanced by the translation into the Arabic language and have as a result insinuated themselves into men's hearts, and the beauty of this language has commingled with these sciences in our veins and arteries. And if I compare Arabic with Persian, two languages with which I consider myself extremely familiar, I must confess I would prefer invective in Arabic to praise in Persian. ..And if it is true that in all nations one likes to adorn oneself by using the language to which one has remained loyal, having become accustomed to using it with friends and companions according to need, I must judge for myself that in my native Chorasmian, science has as much as chance of becoming perpetuated as a camel has of facing Kaaba."

• So here Biruni has clearly stated his native language is Iranian CHorasmian. And this is mentioned by secondary sources:

• Helaine Selin, "Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures ", Springer, 1997. "Al-Biruni", pg 157: "his native language was the Khwarizmian dialect" **Comment: Khwarizmian is an Iranian dialect, so he is Iranian as mentioned by Encyclopaedia of Islam.
• Richard Frye: "..for his native language Khwarazmian was incapable of expressing all the sciences of the world. In fact if a science were preserved in his native language, he says, it would be as strange as a camel walking on the eaves, or a giraffe in the herd of prize horses" (R.N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", 2000, Phoenix Press. pg 232)
• Gotthard Strohmaier, "Biruni" in Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach, Medieval Islamic Civilization: A-K, index: Vol. 1 of Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2006. excerpt from page 112: "Although his native Khwarezmian was also an Iranian language, he rejected the emerging neo-Persian literature of his time (Firdawsi), preferring Arabic instead as the only adequate medium of science.";

• Per Encyclopaedia of Islam: "The Ḵh̲wārazmian language survived for several centuries to come, and so must some at least of the culture and lore of ancient Ḵh̲wārazm, for it is hard to see the commanding figure of Bīrūnī, a repository of so much knowledge, appearing in a cultural vacuum. The persistence of the Ḵh̲wārazmian language was, in fact, an outstanding manifestation of Ḵh̲wārazmian ethnic and cultural vitality. Linguistically, this eastern Iranian language occupies..."(Encyclopaedia of Islam, Khwarizmia)

So the word Iranian is not geographic but ethno-linguistic. Just like the Khwarizm article of ENcyclopaedia of Islam were the word "Iranian" is used in the ethnic sense, not geographical sense! we also have:

• 1) D.J. Boilot, "Al-Biruni (Beruni), Abu'l Rayhan Muhammad b. Ahmad", in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden), New Ed., vol.1:1236-1238. Excerpt 1: "He was born of an Iranian family

in 362/973 (according to al-Ghadanfar, on 3 Dhu'l-Hididja/ 4 September — see E. Sachau, Chronology, xivxvi), in the suburb (birun) of Kath, capital of Khwarizm".

• • Comment, the term used is Iranian family. Family means ethnicity and not geography.
• 2) Helaine Selin, "Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures ", Springer, 1997. "Al-Biruni", pg 157: "his native language was the Khwarizmian dialect"[6]
• 3) D. N. MacKenzie, Encyclopaedia Iranica, "CHORASMIA iii. The Chorasmian Language" [7] "Chorasmian, the original Iranian language of Chorasmia, is attested at two stages of its development...language. Late Chorasmian, written in a modified Arabic script, is attested from the 5th/11th to the 8th/14th centuries, by which time the language was evidently well on the way to disuse, having been superseded by Turkish. The earliest examples have been left by the great Chorasmian scholar Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī. In his works on chronology and astronomy (ca. 390-418/1000-28) he recorded such calendrical and astronomical terms as some of the tradi­tional names of days, months, feasts, and signs of the zodiac"
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Al-Biruni (Persian scholar and scientists)". The article is written by George Saliba.
• 4) M. A. Saleem Khan, "Al-Biruni's discovery of India: an interpretative study", iAcademicBooks, 2001. pg 11: "It is generally accepted that he was Persian by origin,32 and spoke the Khwarizmian dialect" [8] and "Little is known of his ancestry except that he was Persian by origin and spoke the Khwarizmian dialect."(pg 11) and ""What made Al-Biruni so different from Mahmud was not his Iranian origin and Khwarizmian ethnicity""(pg36) [9].
  • Comment: here the author is clear and uses the word "origin". And uses "Iranian origin", not "iranian geography". He uses the word "Khwarizmian ethnicity" since Khwarzmian ethnicity also implies Iranian origin.
• 5) David C. Lindberg, Science in the Middle Ages, University of Chicago Press, p. 18:"A Persian by birth, a rationalist in disposition, this contemporary of Avicenna and Alhazen not only studied history, philosophy, and geography in depth, but wrote one of the most comprehensive of Muslim astronomical treatises, the Qanun Al-Masu'di."
• 6) Gotthard Strohmaier, "Biruni" in Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach, Medieval Islamic Civilization: A-K, index: Vol. 1 of Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2006. excerpt from page 112: "Although his native Khwarezmian was also an Iranian language, he rejected the emerging neo-Persian literature of his time (Firdawsi), preferring Arabic instead as the only adequate medium of science."; D. N. MacKenzie, Encyclopaedia Iranica, "CHORASMIA iii. The Chorasmian Language". Excerpt: "Chorasmian, the original Iranian language of Chorasmia, is attested at two stages of its development..The earliest examples have been left by the great Chorasmian scholar Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī.";
• 7) Richard Frye: [10] "According to the Kharazmian scholar Biruni" (pg 211)
• 8) Richard Frye: "The contribution of Iranians to Islamic mathematics is overwhelming. ..The name of Abu Raihan Al-Biruni, from Khwarazm, must be mentioned since he was one of the greatest scientists in World History"(R.N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", 2000, Phoenix Press. pg 162)
• 9) Mary Boyce, "Textual sources for the study of Zoroastrianism ",Manchester University Press ND, 1984. pg 67: "This account was written by the great Muslim Persian scholar Al Biruni"[11]
• 10)Ramon Folch i Guillèn, Josep María Camarasa, "Encyclopedia of the Biosphere: Deserts", Gale Group, 2000. [12]" Persian scholar al-Biruni (973-1048) accepted the theory that the Earth might rotate on its axis. Another Persian scholar, Omar Khayyam (c. 1048- c. 1132), was an excellent mathematician, astronomer, medical expert"
• 11)Bosworth, C. E. (1968), “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000–1217)”, J.A. Boyle (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, Cambridge University Press: 1-202. [13]. Excerpt from page 7:"The Iranian scholar al-BIruni says that the Khwarazmian era began when the region was first settled and cultivated, this date being placed in the early 13th-century BC) "
• 12)Suniti Kumar Chatterji, "Saṃskr̥ta dig-vijaya", Sanskrit College, 1985. "The Persian scholar Al-BIruni was a great Sanskritist, but his Arabic work on India and her civilisation was a scientific treatise for scholars"[14]
• 13) Aramco world magazine: Volume 33 ,Arabian American Oil Company "Al-Biruni, an 11th-century Persian scholar, wanted to know exactly how many grains of wheat were involved in this problem. " [15] (this is not a scholarly source but it is affiliated with Saudi government, so it shows that even governments can be unbiased).
• 14) Adam Hart-Davis, DK Publishing Rice, "Science: The Definitive Visual Guide", Penguin, 2009. "Al-Biruni 973-1048 CE Persian scholar and scientist who excelled in astronomy, mathematics, physics, medicine, and history, writing about them prolifically"[16]
• 15)Michael Kort, "Central Asian republics",Infobase Publishing, 2004. pg 24:"Another remarkable Central Asian scholar was al-Biruni (973-1048),

a ...an ethnic Persian like Avicenna, Al-Biruni was born near the present-day city of Khiva in Turkemistan"..

I can keep going and note many of these sources use "Ethnic Persian", "Iranian family", "Persian/Iranian origin". Thus they are not discussing geography.. Note the heavy weight scholars mentioned such as Mackenzie, Bosworth, Frye, and etc. The conclusion is:"Biruni was a native Iranian Chorasmian", and hence he is an Iranian, and this has nothing to do with geography. CHorasmia was not even part of Sassanid empire. Given that he has stated his own native language, several soruces clearly also affirm this (e.g. Frye) that he was a native Chorasmian speakers. Thus we do not give equal weight to one fringe website who cannot even make a definite claim, and ignores the clear statement about Biruni. The reason all these scholars are clear he is Iranian is because they do not ignore what Biruni himself says about his own native language. Obviously wikipedia does not work with WP:synthesis, and Bosworth, Frye, Mackenzie , Encyclopaedia of Islam, Britannica need to be followed.

See WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" (That is what is done with Iranian Chorasmian). "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" (well actually, you only have one website source, which by itself is not even 100% sure and it is not a "significant minority"). c) "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. "

The only issue then becomes if we should use "Iranian Chorasmian" or "Persian Chorasmian".. I am willing to be only flexible on this matter since they both mean the same thing in the end. Biruni says CHorasmians are part of the Iranian nation, and modern scholars use both Persian/Iranian. What is 100% clear is that he was a native Iranian Chorasmian (and Iranian in the ethnic sense of speaking Iranian languages such as Chorasmian and not the geography of Iran, which did not include the far off region of Khwarzmia when Biruni was born under the Afrighids.). He has made this explicit himself by stating his native language and scholars also agree Khwarzmian was his native language. Khwarzmian being an Iranian language makes him also part of Iranian peoples and that is exactly why several sources use Iranian/Persian. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Persian" has another meaning today than it had 1000 years ago. Especially Arab(-speaking) historians used to classify a whole bunch of people according to the realm they came from. Hence, a "Persian" was anyone who was born within the territory of former Sassanian Persia. A "Turk" was anyone who was born within the borders of what the Arabs used to call "Bilad at-Turk" ("Turkistan"). An Indian (or: "Hindu") was anyone who was born in India (this classification still continues to this day). Needless to say that many of these so-called "Persians", "Turks", "Hindus" or "Arabs" (which is derived from the Aramaic word for "west", i.e. "west of Mesopotamia") did not belong to any of these groups. Al-Biruni is such a case. He was (by ethnicity and by language) a Khwarizmian, but he was also a staunch supporter of the Arabic language and attacked those who wrote in Persian. In any case, calling him "Persian" (and linking that to Persian people) is wrong. Calling him "Iranian" is somewhat different, because he was an Iranian, both from an ethnic point of view as well as from a geographic and historical one. --Lysozym (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So I take it that you suggest changing Persian people to Iranian peoples? I do not have too much problem with that. But Biruni, al-Masu'di and etc., actually use Persian in the ethnic sense. That is why they mention the Persian calendar. When Biruni states: "The Khwarizmians are a branch of the Persian nation"..he means it in the ethnic sense as well. But I do agree that Iranian Khwarzmian is perhaps the most accurate, here Iranians is used in the ethnic sense since Khwarzmia was not part of the geography of Sassanids. Rather Iranian refers to his native background (speakers of Khwarzmian langauge). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Termini technici of modern linguistics should not be reflected on historical personalities. "Ethnicity" had a different meaning back then than it has today (cf. Benedict Anderson → Imagined communities). And yes, I prefer "Iranian" in this case. "Persian" is wrong. --Lysozym (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I disagreee with some forms of the modern intrepretations. It is true that in far-away Arab writings (not Persian ones from the area), the terms Turks, Persians and Indians at that times were geographical. But this is not all the time case (e.g. Shu'abbiyah). Note the quote by Shaban above with regards to Sogdians, Chorasmians and other Central Asians being called "Turk" in some arabic writings. However, the difference is that Persian was used for inhabitants of Persia which were Iranian (Persian).
• More importantly: "Pre-modern, non-Western nations do not fit seamlessly into this model. The idea of national identity in societies of Asia is often derived from fictive genealogical and territorial origins and vernacular culture and religion "[17]. The sources I brought above talk about "origin", "extraction", "ethnicity using the word Persian as well as Iranian (which you agree with). On Biruni: " "ttacked those who wrote in Persian", thats not correct. He simply says he prefers Arabic in scientific discourse, but in the end, himself has written some Persian works (which shows revision of early views). He was somewhat supportive of Shu'abbiyah as hinted by Frye, .."Al--Biruni, the great scholar of the Ghaznavid period, was proud of Iranian antiquities, but he praised the Arabic language" (R.N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", 2000, Phoenix Press. pg 46)., but was proudly Muslim as well.
• Persian and Iranian are used by Western scholars equivalently when it comes to this era.. they mean Iranian/Persian origin not geography (some Arab texts might mean geography at that time, but not the Western scholars who are describing this era.). They are not using the definition of Arab texts, but they are using the definition of Iranian language speakers. For example, Afshin in some classical Arabic sources is called a "Turk" but modern sources use Iranian, because they are not going based on the medieval Arabic texts, but rather on the precise definition of "Iranian language speaker" (which many use the term Persian to cover a wide net).
• Note Biruni himself was aware of differences of Iranians (Chorasmians, Sogdians, Persians) with say Chinese, Khazars, Turks, Arabs, Hebrews, Greeks. Ultimately they mean speaker of an Iranian language, and this is actually the most common usage of Persian.
• Anyhow, given that Biruni has actually stated his native language as Chorasmian, and Encyclopaedia of Islam calls him Iranian, I think Iranian-Chorasmian is probably the best option as well. It is baseless to consider Biruni anything other than Iranian (in the ethnic sense), since he has in 100% clear terms stated his language as Chorasmian.
• Since yoou agree, and I agree, then I shall wait couple of more days, and then change it accordingly.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)