Talk:Arabic numerals

Medieval Arabic numbers
We can see the correct format and sequence of the medieval "european" numbers in title page of the book Libro Intitulado Arithmetica Practica by Juan de Yciar, the Basque calligrapher and mathematician, Saragossa 1549, and at Filippo Calandri, De Arithmetica, Florença: Lorenzo Morgiani and Johannes Petri, 1491-92, page 145. The figures shows the calligraphical place value of: one 1, two 2, three 3, four 4, five 5, six 6, seven 7, eight 8, nine 9, and ten o.



Hindu-renaming debate
(All the following paragraphs are on the same topic, so I took the liberty of grouping them)

Difference
There is a difference between Arabic numerals and Hindo one; the Arabic ones are those used in European languages, while the hindo are those still used in Arabic language itself like ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩. الرشيد (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

To user Spitzak: perhaps some scholarly insight can help here. "Hindu" looks like like a bogus transcription, although it's not clear of what Arabic word exactly. The two that might apply would better be transcribed as "[hindusiyya](https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9)", in English "Hinduism" (the religion) or "hindiyya", basically "Indian" or "of Indian origin". The numerals ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩ given by user Rasheed above are indeed called "[arqaam hindiyya](https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85_%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9)" (in Arabic, meaning "Indian numbers". "The Arabs" definitely don't call _anything_ "hindu", and although I'm neither a mathematician nor a historian, I'd be very surprised if the term I mentioned ("arqaam hindiyya") was used to mean "base-10 system", let alone systems. That, as far as I'm aware, is called "[nidhaam 'ad 'asharee](https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%B9%D8%AF_%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A)". If you're going to edit the article any further, it'd be nice if it also did away with the (western) urban myth that the concept of zero was invented by an Arab. It's much older and came to them from India, along with the numerals ०१२३४५६७८९, which slowly morphed into ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩, which in turn further morphed into 0123456789 during their journey west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.93.118 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I very much suspect the text that I copied is bogus, I will remove my copy and the original now.Spitzak (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This article still needs considerable cleanup, as it continuously talks about *all* base-10 systems rather than the Arabic digits. This is making lots of confusing text, such as the sentence I deleted that seemed to claim that these digits are called "Hindu" by Arabs. Actually a careful reading shows that it claims that Arabs call the entire set of base-10 systems "Hindu" but I suspect that is incorrect and the term "Hindu" explictly means not the Arabic digits.Spitzak (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Had a little trouble as somebody thought I was making unwanted changes, despite the fact that I was reverting something I wrote. This time I did not delete the "Hindu Numerals" mention but instead clarified what the article was claiming which is that it is the (translated?) Arabic name for all base-10 systems, including Western and Eastern Arabic digits and also all the Indian ones. I still feel this is probably in error, from your statement it sounds like this term means *only* the Eastern Arabic Numerals. Can you confirm this or otherwise explain what the term means? I do think it would be nice to fix this error.Spitzak (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, the OP didn't give any sources and it doesn't need to be taken seriously. Scholars state that the "Hindu numerals" were received as a package in the Arabic east as well as the Arabic west, and later they evolved through the centuries via differences in hand-writing. There used to be an old theory that the numerals in the Arabic west had some other origin, and they were supposedly called "ghubar numerals". But modern scholars don't agree with these theories any more.
 * When you are reverting your own edits, please label them as self-revert or some such thing so that we know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually the Indian numbers Arabs use look different then the original Indian numbers (of which different forms existed), just like the Western numbers (of which different forms existed) actually look different then the Arab numbers (of which different forms existed). Arabs call the Western numbers just that - Western or European numbers.

And the first description of the Indian Numbers was written by a Syro-Aramaeic monk named Severus Sebokht.--89.144.221.59 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Lately-added note about original statement in this section
It's not "Hindo" it's Hindu aka Hindoo in older texts Sooku (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So the Western Arabic numbers are just like the European ones? Jokem (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Can numerals be "Hindu"?
Most western historians translating the Arabic terms translate them as "Hindu numerals". But the proper translation would be "Indian numerals". Hindī is an adjective derived from Arabic Hind (India).

"Hindu" is an older Persian term, which referred to the people of India. It would be odd indeed to call numerals "Hindu".

So, if there are no objections, I would like to change all the occurrences of "Hindu" to "Indian", at least when translating Arabic terms and phrases. (But I would leave alone the "Hindu-Arabic numerlas" term, even though it suffers from the same problem.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to follow what the sources say and do, whether we agree with them, or not. Paul August &#9742; 19:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can find sources for both. We need to make a decision. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If, as you say, most historians use the term "Hindu numerals" then I would think we should follow that. Paul August &#9742; 20:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that I said I don't propose to change the official name "Hindu-Arabic numerals". But in the English descriptions, we have no reason to follow the ill-informed language of the sources. Here is an Encyclopedia article that does exactly what I recommended:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to judge sources as "ill-informed". But why don't you list the specific changes you wish to make, and we can discuss them, with sources, individually. Paul August &#9742; 23:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Charles Burnett is a Professor of the History of Islamic Influences in Europe. I have cited an uptodate WP:TERTIARY source, which can be used to decide DUE WEIGHT when there are disagreements among sources. I will follow this terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Charles Burnett is a Professor of the History of Islamic Influences in Europe. I have cited an uptodate WP:TERTIARY source, which can be used to decide DUE WEIGHT when there are disagreements among sources. I will follow this terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why you can label numbers Arabic but not Hindu, if both refer to geographical regions? It would only be an issue if Hindu referred to a religion, but there was no Hinduism when these numbers were invented. I am just making a point, I have no objection to using "Indian numbers" if someone important has an allergy to the word "Hindu". Sooku (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sooku, that content is now gone from this page. It is supposed to be covered in Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but it is probably not there either.
 * But, the point is that the Arabic name of Al-Khwarizmi's book Kitab hisab al-'adad al-hindi means the "book on calculation with Indian numerals". "Hindi" is the Arabic term for Indian, not Hindu. I don't believe the word "Hindu" was in use at the time of Al-Khwarizmi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Article's Name
We should move this page to Hindu-Arabic numerals, given that this is how all other encyclopedias (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica) name the number system, and this is how it is referred to in modern academic papers. The various academic articles that I have read also name the system as Hindu-Arabic system. Further, in the opening lines of this article itself, it says 'The term (article name) often implies a decimal number written using these digits, which is the most common system for the symbolic representation of numbers in the world today and is also called Hindu–Arabic numerals'. Already an article by the name Hindu-Arabic numerals exists, which is clearly more adopted and less controversial. So I think this article should be moved there.Trojanishere (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Not this again! This article is about the digits that look like this: 0123456789. These digits are used in social security numbers and phone numbers and are valid in programming language identifiers and are used to write Hexadecimal and Octal and Binary, and are provided in fonts and in many variations in Unicode that other forms of digits are not provided in. Check "what links here" and you will see that virtually every reference is from an article distinguishing this form of digits from others, such as many instances in typography and Unicode articles. It is not about base 10! Base-10 was invented hundreds of years earlier in India using different digits, and frankly linking this to that is insulting to the Hindu mathematicians that developed it without any help from Arabs.Spitzak (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not this nonsense again ... 92.12.23.104 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But you can't fight the tide of woke ignorance. 92.12.23.104 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Look at the first three figures in the article. Only the last one, from 15th century, uses the modern numerals clearly, and it was not composed by Arabs. The 10th century figure only has some of the modern numerals. Sooku (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you refer to Hindu-Arabic Numeral System?
Hindu-Arabic numeral system states that "It was invented between the 1st and 4th centuries by Indian mathematicians. The system was adopted in Arabic mathematics by the 9th century." What is the reason for this separate entry? It leaves the reader confused as to the origin of the present numbers. Was it India, or Arabia? Is the Indian origin disputed? Sooku (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These characters were not invented in the Hindu area.Spitzak (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * May I ask, how do you know that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two types of Arabic Numerals: Eastern Arabic Numerals(١	٢	٣	٤	٥	٦	٧	٨	٩	١٠) and Western Arabic Numerals(12345678910). Eastern Arabic Numerals may be called Hindu-Arabic but Western Arabic Numerals were developed in the Maghreb(Western Arabic World i.e areas west of Egypt in North Africa to historical Andalusia Spain). The Hindu Indian or Devanagari Numerals are ०	१	२	३	४	५	६	७	८	९. Reference is already added from books. There is already a separate page for Indian Devanagari Numerals. Therefore no need to confuse the readers about different numerals. Even eastern and western Arabic numerals are not the same.

--MasterWikian (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like there should at least be some mention of where the concept came from in thr “History” section. 76.131.229.171 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have tried this repeatedly, pointing out carefully that the system was developed with DIFFERENT symbols and this is what distinguishes "Arabic numerals" from "the Hindu-Arabic numeral system" (which is actually called "Decimal" and includes some inventions done in Arabia such as the decimal point). However all such attempts are reverted, by the same people who insist the word "Hindu" be inserted into this text as many times as possible.Spitzak (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

September 2021
With regard to this edit:

The content that you are reinstating wasn't removed in recent months just for fun. I suggest you refrain from edit warring and seek consensus for its addition. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so why was this passage removed for example?

Or this key passage?

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is apparently the edit that removed them, with no edit summary, and marked as a "minor edit" to boot! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

And the source for the so-called "ghubar numerals" is materiaiislamica.com, citing a paper from 1931? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have restored the first and some of the other content that was deleted by . The second needs further investigation as it is confusing and not supported by what is quoted.


 * I'm not sure what the exact issue is with the "also known as ghubar numerals". This simple fact is already highlighted in your "key passage". M.Bitton (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Where are your references that the numerals were developed in Maghreb? As a matter of fact the numerals that were known by the people of Maghreb at that time are different with the current so-called arabic numerals the we use today (1, 2, 3, etc).
 * https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-evolution-of-hindu-arabic-numerals-from-the-1st-century-to-the-24899370.html
 * The numerals were first developed by the indians, which later adopted by the arabs who altered their shapes a bit to their liking, then adopted by the westerners who altered their shapes a bit to their liking as well.
 * So it's completely not true if it's said that the numerals were first developed in Maghreb, and disregard the Indians who first invented it. AzizurRahman7 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between the system commonly called the "Hindu–Arabic numeral system", and the numerals that this system uses. This article is about the "Western Arabic Numerals", commonly known as "Arabic numerals". Their origin, somewhere in the Muslim west (be it the Maghreb or Andalusia), is already covered in the article.
 * I asked you to join the discussion so that you could read what is being discussed and maybe suggest an addition (about the numerals and not the system) that you think is appropriate. Your second blind and completely unjustified revert to an old POV version has thus been reverted. I trust you will refrain from edit warring and seek consensus for your addition. M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's blind editting and being not objective. It was developed by the indians. The arabs adopted it and only altered the shapes a bit. And later the westerners learned these altered shapes of the numerals and changed the shapes a bit to their liking as well.
 * It's clear from the sources that I brought and this image on the article.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Brahmi_numeral_system_and_its_descendants.png
 * AzizurRahman7 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said: there is a difference between the system commonly called the "Hindu–Arabic numeral system" (the one you're referring to), and the numerals that this system uses. This article is about the "Western Arabic Numerals", commonly known as "Arabic numerals". M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What is calling "Numeral system" (in his file name) is indeed what you call "numerals". So, his points are quite relevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They can call it whatever they want, but the fact that this article is about the numerals and not the system is undisputable. Given the previous discussion, I expect you to know this better than most. M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But your presumption that everybody is talking about "numeral systems" is quite disputable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's you POV that I won't be entertaining, especially since you abandoned the discussion after needlessly tagging the article (I'm referring the "also known as ghubar numerals" that I highlighted above and that you ignored). M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean, like your pretending not to hear the first question: "Where are your references that the numerals were developed in Maghreb?"
 * The issue with the terminology of "ghubar numerals" is clear from the Kunitzsch, who concludes by saying that it is inappropriate terminology. If you read the whole paper, there is plenty of explanation of why it is inappropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't answer questions about claims I didn't make. Where the development the Western Numerals occurred (shockingly, somewhere in the Maghreb or Andalusia) is already partly covered in the article.
 * With regard to the fact that you tagged the part that says "also called ghubar numerals": Kunitzsch concluding that it's inappropriate to describe them as such doesn't mean that they are not known as such (what you seem to be questioning), in fact it suggests the exact opposite. This is basic common sense. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ghubar reckoning" is the term used for what the eastern Arabs called "Hindu/Indian reckoning". The figures used in such calculation were called "Ghubar figures", ''irresective of whether they were western figures or the eastern figures or those from Timbaktoo." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the "reckoning" or "figures"? I'm starting to wonder whether you're really reading what I'm obviously wasting my time writing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the "reckoning" or "figures"? The Arabs did, and the sources do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the above reply, I no longer have to wonder whether you're really reading what I'm writing. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton Yes, I'm talking about the numerals (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) as well, together alongside the system they were invented by the indian in the first to fourth century. Some hundreds of years later, the arabs adopted those numerals and the system from the indians and altered the numerals shapes a bit. Which then this arabic version encountered later by the westerners who adopted them and changed their shapes too to what we know and use today as arabic numerals. It's very clear from the sources that have been provided.
 * Stop pushing your agenda here please. - AzizurRahman7 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Casting aspersions makes you irrelevant. Please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

POV issues
It is perfectly natural for mathematicians to investigate the history of mathematics. It is equally natural for them to get it completely wrong, because they have no training in history.

Coupled with this, investigating old written scripts is incredibly hard. All writing materials of old times were perishable, and the samples we find are no more than a few hundred years old. It is easy for an untrained researcher to assume that the a manuscript is as old as the text itself, or to imagine that the writing reflects in some way the original script used. A number of preposterous theories have been put forward based on such naivety about the numerals we use.

The history of numerals also involves investigating multiple cultures (Indian, Arab, Latin and medieval European), each of which has enormous diversity over long spans of time. Once again, this calls for extremely sophisticated historical research.

Over the last few months, a group of editors have systematically removed (reverted here), all references to "Indian" or "Hindu" from this page, guided by a speculative myth that the numerals were independently "developed" in Maghreb.. They have also resorted to edit warring to reinstate their preferred version. Yet according to modern scholars, "The Arabic numerals that are universally used nowadays were formerly called "Indian numerals," in recognition of their ultimate origin".

While I don't think everything in the old version was correct, it is a lot closer reality than the present pseudo-historical version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) You need to back your claims about the reasons behind their edits with diffs. 2) You have failed to mention that some of the old content has been restored (including the part that you highlighted). 3) Since you seem to have access to Kunitzsch's source (you alluded to this in your previous comment), why don't you share with us what it says about the development of the Western Arabic numerals? M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He says they were received from the east and some of the figures evolved. The Western Arabs received their numerals from the East as a closed, complete, system of nine signs, and it would only appear natural that they continued to use it in this complete form, not breaking the series up and replacing single elements by foreign letters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you started a new discussion (while one is already underway), I expect you to address all the points that have been raised (no cherry picking). He said a lot more than that (while being less adamant about where or how they evolved), but we'll get to that later. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is about the "evolution" or the "changes" you keep mentioning. It is not about the origin of the base-10 numerical system, which predates these digits by hundreds and hundreds of years. It is pretty obvious that a person who knows the Arabic numerals is totally unable to decipher numbers written in Eastern Arabic or any Hindu digits, which is proof that these digits are a different subject from all the other sets of digits. This article should be about how the changes, which have world-wide significance, came to happen. For instance you can see that 2 and 3 are rotated 90 degrees from the Eastern Arabic versions. Why? How did it happen? Which one was developed first? What about the digits that don't match, or seem to be shifted in value from Hindu systems?
 * I don't know the actual history, but IMHO the version you are trying to restore sounds more "authentic" and may be correct? However it is seriously badly contaminated by talking about base-10, a desire to say the word "Hindu" as many times as physically possible, and events that predate the development of the digits by many centuries, including lots of very confusing chronological jumps. Please fix these problems instead of doing blind reverts. The only thing that should be said about India is the form of digits that the Arabs copied (if known), and perhaps how they may have diverged from other digits that did not lead to the Arabic digits.Spitzak (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
1) The dictionary that you added is not a secondary reliable source and it doesn't support the content that you're attributing to it. 2) You claim that the Kunitzsch's source describes the western Arabic numerals as "Hindu-Arabic numerals" on page 10? Can you quote from that page the part that supports what you're claiming? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the same goes for Britannica: it's not a reliable source.
 * you have edited the article after I pinged you. If you don't supply the quote as asked, I will have to assume that Kunitzsch's doesn't support what you're attributing to it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Kunitzsch writes on page 10:
 * "it is no longer justified for us to call the Western Arabic forms of the Hindu-Arabic numerals 'ghubar numerals'"
 * In comparison, he writes on page 29:
 * "The Eastern forms of the Hindu-Arabic numerals, on the other hand, are closer to the original Sanskrit shapes"
 * So his use of the phrase to refers the Western and Eastern forms on different pages.
 * The American Heritage Dictionary source explicitly says that Arabic numerals are also called Hindu-Arabic numerals, so it does support the content.
 * Britannica is fine as a source as well. Previous WP:RSN discussions do not say that it is an unreliable source, and say it is fine to use it (see WP:BRITANNICA).
 * --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source does not support what you added to the article (Arabic numerals, also known as "Hindu-Arabic numerals"). It will have to be removed.
 * I already explained to you that dictionaries are not secondary reliable sources, and neither is Britannica which in this case doesn't even support what you're attributing to it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources says that "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." So what policy or guideline would support your claim? And the Oxford English Dictionary is already cited in the article to support the use of 'Arabic numerals'. Why was it not called into question? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Britannica article starts with: "Hindu-Arabic numerals, set of 10 symbols—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0—that represent numbers in the decimal number system." The Wikipedia article starts with: "Arabic numerals are the ten digits: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9." They are both referring to the same thing. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're drawing your conclusion from an irrelevant and rather tiny article from Britannica which clearly doesn't explicitly state what you're attributing to it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Britannica article is about the same subject. It literally states "Alternate titles: Arabic numeral". Why do you think that it is irrelevant? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Britannica pseudo article (a paragraph), which isn't about the Western Arabic numerals, is hardly a source anyone who's seriously interested in the subject would read. M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article is about Arabic numerals, and the Britannica article about the digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 also has the alternative title "Arabic numeral". So both are about the same thing. On the other hand, "Western Arabic numerals" are not mentioned in the Britannica article, and the claim currently in the Wikipedia article that it is the same thing is not cited to any source, either. As quoted above, what Kunitzsch calls them is 'Western Arabic forms of the Hindu-Arabic numerals'. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The Britannica pseudo article (a paragraph) is not worth mentioning. 2) For someone who claims to have read Kunitzsch's book, I find your statement rather "surprising" since they mention the "Western Arabic numerals" multiple times. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Kunitzsch's book does not state that "Western Arabic numerals" are the same as "Arabic numerals", which is what this article is about. So the claim that they are also known as "Western Arabic numerals" is unsupported. Kunitzsch uses the phrase "Arabic numerals" (without a "Western" or "Eastern" prefix) just once, on page 10, but he does not write anywhere that he considers them the same as "Western Arabic numerals". Looking at other sources, the American Heritage Dictionary does not even have an entry for "Western Arabic numeral", nor does it mention the term in its entry on "Arabic numeral". It seems that the phrase was added to this article in August 2021, with no source to support it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that this must be embarrassing for you, but I have to say that you're making even worse but highlighting even more the fact that you haven't even read the book that you're quoting. M.Bitton (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please lay off the personal attacks (you might want to read No personal attacks) and supply a quotation to support your claim instead, like I did. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Kunitzsch uses the phrase "Arabic numerals" (without a "Western" or "Eastern" prefix) just once, on page 10 You're cherry picking a sentence out of context: when talking about the "Arabic numerals" that came to be used in Europe (his own words and what this article is about), he specifically talks about the "Western Arabic numerals" and the history of their development for the rest of the article. M.Bitton (talk)

Quotations from other Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. So far, you have not provided a quotation from Kunitzsch himself that explicitly states that Arabic numerals are also called "Western Arabic numerals". That is because his work does not state that anywhere. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Quotations from other Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources What are you on about? If expect a diff to support this nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That the Arabic numerals are also called Hindu-Arabic numerals seems adequately sourced by the three cited sources, which, by Wikipedia's standards: WP:RS, all qualify as reliable sources. Paul August &#9742; 17:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"Hindu-Arabic numerals"
I strongly suspect the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals" actually means all sets of numerals that are used to write base-10, and therefore is not an "alternative name" for "Arabic numerals" which is a specific subset. This would be like saying in the article about "Spain" that an alternative name is "Country". I know this is an endless edit war but it would be nice to fix it if incorrect. Note that claiming that "Arabic numerals" are "Hindu" is pretty insulting to the Hindu mathematicians, as they actually developed decimal notation hundreds of years before these digits existed. Spitzak (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , you had added a disputed inline tag to the 'Hindu-Arabic numerals' phrase with the comment 'No indication this term means this subset of digit symbols' in August. The reference next to the phrase says, "One of the numerical symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 0. Also called Hindu-Arabic numeral." This is an explicit statement from a reliable source that the term means this subset of digit symbols, not other symbols that are used for writing decimal numbers. For your second point, the phrase Hindu-Arabic numerals may well be offensive to some people, but being offensive is not grounds for removal as long the content is in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference does not say "ONLY" these symbols.Spitzak (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals and not "Arabic numerals"
The name of the article should be "Hindu Arabic numerals". Because to keep the name of the article as just "Arabic numerals" is misleading because Arabs didn't invent these numerals, as it was first invented by Indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.226.81.227 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is about the numerals used in Europe. The topic you're referring to is the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. The article doesn't say the Arabs "invented" them, it says the numerals are Arabic in origin. If you had read any of the comments in this page you would understand that the Hindu numerals developed into multiple distinct sets of numerals. At least in the literature cited in previous comments here, "Hindu-Arabic numerals" seems to encompass the entire numeral tradition. Whereas "Arabic numerals," in the literature, refers only to the western Arabic numerals that were borrowed by medieval Europeans. On its face, I would expect "Arabic numerals" to encompass both western and eastern Arabic numerals by virtue of analogy with "Hindu-Arabic numerals." But that's not how it's used in the English literature and this is English wikipedia. It's used to refer to the numeral system used in the same corpus of literature. So at issue is its immediate provenance, not its ultimate provenance. The name of the article can't explicate both at once without confusing readers by overlapping with other articles (see the one I linked earlier for example). Aminomancer (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This whole debate is ultimately pointless: This article is about what today's Western system is commonly called in the West, and that is "Arabic numerals", as everyone calls the letters that way, originally to distinguish frok Roman numerals. Nobody argues against the facts where the numbers were derived from, or who invented the system. But while everyone knows that the numbers were not invented in Arabia, everyone calls them Arabic. Wikipedia doesn't change established names - we're not replacing "Japan" with "Nihon" in all articles just because that would be more correct. This whole rebranding debate is a POV agenda. I don't think there are similar debates about the Latin script, which should be called "Phoenician-Greek script" by the same logic, as the Romans copycatted it in the whole cloth from the Greek. --Enyavar (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather, the Arabs invented it. How do you deny this? A group of Arab scholars created it and it is now spread in the world after it moved to Europe via Morocco. It is called dust numbers or Arabic numbers based on the number of angles, or because you are a Hindu who wants to deny what the Arabs did? 109.107.227.242 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes. There was significant sharing of mathematical ideas between India and the Arab world for centuries. Let's please not apply modern religious feuds to the subject of thousand-year-old scientific developments. –jacobolus (t) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

July 2022
You seem to be confusing the Arabic Numerals with the Eastern Arabic Numerals. M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No I'm not. Kazamzam (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the first mention of Arabic numerals in Syriac dates the writings of Severus Sebokht to 662 CE? M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Take it up with History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system. I have zero interest in arguing this with you. Kazamzam (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Arabic Numerals (i.e., the Western Arabic Numerals) and not the "Hindu–Arabic numeral system". The feeling is mutual, but since you seem to be confused, I have no other choice. M.Bitton (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton, so? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by that. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant here is that it doesn't really matter. I just saw the recent edit war between you guys, and it's honestly silly. The distinction doesn't really matter at early history, all of the content Kazamzam has added is good content. If you insist, you can reword the text to be more clear and this is certainly a better alternative to a bitter edit war. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant to the topic, so it does matter in that respect. Just have a look at the section just above this one and see what others think about the POV that has nothing to do with the primary topic ( summed it quite well). M.Bitton (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not European or latin digits.
1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 0 They are Arabic numbers developed by Al-Khwarizmi, the author of Algebra. It is true that these numbers were used later in Europe and around the world, but they are still Arabic numbers. You can say that they are western Arabic numbers because they are used in the west of the Arab world, but they are not Latin and not European numbers. In the past, Europeans used Roman numerals. محمد حجاج الصباغ (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, that is what is explained in the article . Except for the part where "they are still Arabic numbers", because, you see, Arabic uses different characters for these numbers. --Enyavar (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Arabic numerals or Hindu–Arabic numeral system
This is the more common name used to describe the ten digits since it was discovered that the Arabs got them from the Hindu civilization. Accordingly, the title of this article should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This article should be merged with Hindu–Arabic numeral system.
 * No, this has been explained a hundred times. This article is about this set of symbols, which were NOT developed in India! Decimal is written with many different sets of symbols, and in particular was invented using different symbols, and is NOT the subject of this article.Spitzak (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

can we take the boxes out from around the numerals in the lead section?
These boxes seem visually heavy/distracting and completely unnecessary. Wikipedia readers are plenty smart enough to figure out that the symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0 are being explicitly referred to without boxing them. This was apparently added in November by @CactiStaccingCrane; the digits were unboxed for many years previously without issue. I think this change was a clear regression. –jacobolus (t) 00:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like it was added as above. I went to the diff you cited, then had a look at the previous versions; the box frame goes back farther than that. It seems the box in the present version is rendered due to the "thumb" parameter. The 'thumb' can be removed, but then the position shows up awkwardly, which can be fixed by adding the parameter 'right', but it still looks awkward to me. The current way might be the best way to present it.  signed, Willondon (talk)  01:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * he appears to be refering to the text in the lead, not the image to the right of it. I don't really see a point to them being there. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I missed the reply here. I am talking about the templates, not the floating image. –jacobolus (t) 08:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see now. The boxes render very faintly on my setup. I didn't see them at first.  signed, Willondon (talk)  14:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since no one seems to be objecting, I'm just going to go ahead and get rid of them; if someone feels strongly otherwise, they can revert and bring it up here. LittlePuppers (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This article should not be cut off from Hindu–Arabic numeral system
It is completely absurd for Wikipedia to have Arabic numerals as a child article of Hindu–Arabic numeral system (see Summary Style) but not even mention the parent article anywhere.

These two articles, alongside Decimal, Numerical digit, History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, Brahmi numerals, Eastern Arabic numerals, Positional notation, Numeral system, Number, etc. should be part of some coherent organization and narrative structure so that readers can easily figure out which one is relevant to the topic they were curious about and then find the information they need. Siloing these articles based on nationalist ideology or whatever is an abuse of Wikipedia which poorly serves the majority of readers.

In this talk page it has been repeatedly stated by editors attempting to block proposed improvements that this article is only supposed to be about the "Western Arabic numerals", meaning the specific "branch" of the tree of symbol ancestry leading to the symbols 0123456789 and excluding e.g. the Eastern Arabic numerals branch. These editors have suggested that any broader information should instead go to the parent subjects like Hindu–Arabic numeral system etc.

That seems like a fine organization pattern to me, but in that case the parent article Hindu–Arabic numeral system must be prominently linked, ideally in the lead section but possibly at the top of the following section, or else readers will not be able to find it. Editors preventing such links need to carefully re-read WP:OWN and work toward community consensus rather than enforcing their personal preferences/ideology.

We should carefully consider what subject incoming wiki-links to Arabic numerals from other articles are actually intending to point readers to, and what subject readers who arrive by searching Wikipedia or their search engine are looking for, and try to direct them efficiently to the information they need. My expectation is that most wiki-links to the specific name "Arabic numerals" are intending to direct readers to information about the number system, and most readers arriving via search are looking for information about the number system broadly, rather than a narrow discussion of the glyph shapes and their spread between the 9th–15th century (even that narrower subject is frankly not very well developed here).

Proposal: I think these problems would be solved if we (A) rename this article to Western Arabic numerals, leaving in place its narrow focus on the form of the symbols, their divergence from "Eastern Arabic numerals" in the 9th century, their transmission to Europe and further evolution in glyph shapes since then; then (B) redirect the name "Arabic numerals" to Hindu–Arabic numeral system, since most readers arriving at that title are likely looking for more general information. That article can then be expanded/refocused a bit to start by describing how the number system works, deferring discussion related to historical linguistics to a later section. –jacobolus (t) 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose redirecting "Arabic numerals" to "Hindu–Arabic numeral system" for the simple reason that the this article is about the numerals that are commonly known as "Arabic numerals", while the other is about the numeral system (i.e., they are two different subjects). M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You aren't considering which subject readers who arrive at the name are intending or intended to see. I tried navigating to some random articles linking here; many (most?) of the inbound links are from overstuffed navigation templates such as, but almost all of the other inbound links I looked at would be better served by a link to Hindu–Arabic numeral system instead – for example, Index, A History of the, Finger-counting, Jeton, Tetradic number, Boskone, Chemical element, Gibraltar Chronicle, Post-classical history, Bamboo tally, Shinobis Riders, Kilometres per hour, Yuan dynasty, in all of which the name "Arabic numerals" is being used to mean the number system rather than the specific symbols. A few seem like the glyphs as a direct subject may be narrowly more relevant, e.g. from Diacritic, Color vision test, Apollo 15, though I think readers clicking these would be fine if they hit an article about the number system. I couldn't really find any articles whose wikilinks really seem particularly targeted to the content currently in this article (but I didn't look exhaustively), and in such cases as I could imagine, using the name "Western Arabic numerals" would probably be clearer anyway. Some other inbound links aren't quite appropriate to send to either of these articles (though I'm not sure what the best target would be), such as from Writing system. –jacobolus (t) 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:COMMONNAME (Arabic numerals in this instance) is not defined by the assumed wrong wikilinks of some random wiki articles. M.Bitton (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the "common name" we are talking about here ("Arabic numbers" or "Arabic numerals") refers to the number system more often than to the particular symbols (both here at Wikipedia, and also externally). –jacobolus (t) 19:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a web search, a google scholar search, and a search in the book corpus of the internet archive, and from randomly clicking around, yes it does. The vast majority of the uses I see are either directly using the term as shorthand for the number system, or in vague/ambiguous uses. I can't find any sources at all using this term with a direct focus on the historical development of letter shapes that this article currently focuses on. –jacobolus (t) 20:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously challenging the meaning of a common name whose simple definition is widely known? The sources about the development of the Arabic numerals are already listed on the article and mentioned on this very talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When sources use the word "Arabic number" or "Arabic numeral", they are nearly always talking about the use of the positional decimal number system in general, rather than about the specific form of the glyphs. Here are some examples: "participants are shown pairs of Arabic numerals and asked to decide which of the two numerals is larger"; "second graders successfully reason about ratios with both dot arrays and Arabic numerals"; "we can find out to what extent Arabic numerals are processed like pictures or like words"; "ordering and planning in sequential responding to Arabic numerals by a chimpanzee"; "we are accustomed to use two kinds of numerals with very different histories, the Roman and the so-called Arabic numerals"; "he showed good arabic numeral comprehension as evidenced in number-comparison tasks"; "verbal numerals are used mainly in conversation; arabic numerals are preferred for performing calculations and for writing down large numbers"; "preference for Roman numerals continued among bookkeepers until the sixteenth century, hundreds of years after the introduction of Arabic numbers"; "Hindu–Arabic numerals slowly spread from Italy to the rest of the European continent, reaching a widespread diffusion only at the end of the 16th century"; etc. etc. etc. –jacobolus (t) 21:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No they are not (as proven by the provided sources). Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not meant to be based on the ignorance of some second graders who never opened a dictionary. M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Every one of your examples is indicating that the western digits are being used. Do you really really think that any of those sentences implies that Indian or Eastern Arabic or Mayan or whatever digits were used? Spitzak (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The conventional expression of this number system – in English and other European languages – is to use the symbols 0123456789, but the specific convention about symbols is totally irrelevant to every one of these examples. If we instead used the symbols ZYXWVUTSRQ to represent 0–9, nothing at all would change in any of these examples. If any of these examples included a wiki-link on the term Arabic numeral, readers would be significantly better served by getting an article describing the number system than an article describing the evolution of these symbols in the 10th–15th century per se. –jacobolus (t) 21:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "system" has no place here. We are talking about the "Arabic numerals". M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's totally obvious from a web search that the term "arabic numerals" explicitly excludes other numeral forms, such as Indian and East Arabic and so on. By far the most common use is in sentences like "this typewriter can print all the Arabic numerals" (or more likely "fill out this form using Arabic Numerals"). Spitzak (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The second of your examples is very obviously using "Arabic Numerals" as shorthand for the number system (it means, as compared to filling a form using Roman numerals, spelled out words for numbers, etc.; it's clearly not trying to say "please use conventional number symbols found in English rather than the symbols conventional in Bengali or Farsi", which no reader of such a form would ever consider). The first one pretty much is also. Neither of these examples is really about the preference for e.g. the symbol "5" vs. "५" or "۵" or "𑁫". If a wiki-link were attached to the phrase Arabic numerals in either of these contexts, it would be more useful for a reader to get to an article describing the structure and use of the positional decimal numeration system (which in English conventionally uses the symbols "0123456789") rather than an article focused on the glyph shapes and their evolution. –jacobolus (t) 21:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you are trying to rewrite the simple definition of the dictionaries. M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WHAT? Are you really saying that somebody who says "use Arabic Numerals" would think it was ok and they could read it if Indian or Eastern Arabic glyphs were used? And somebody saying "this prints all the Arabic Numerals" is implying that it can print Indian or Eastern Arabic or whatever????? Spitzak (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to tell if I'm just very bad at explaining myself or if you are being deliberately obtuse. You have entirely missed my point. I don't really know how to phrase it more clearly, and don't really want to just repeat myself. Can you try re-reading my comments a couple of times more carefully and see if you figure out what I am trying to say? I think you should be able to if you pay attention. –jacobolus (t) 21:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, you're not making any sense. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will quote you. You said the term "Arabic Numerals" is not 'about the preference for e.g. the symbol "5" vs. "५" or "۵" or "𑁫".' Really seriously you believe that???? Spitzak (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, when an article about math education says "he showed good arabic numeral comprehension as evidenced in number-comparison tasks", the author's point has nothing to do with which specific symbols are being used, but is that the student has learned to decode and use the conventional positional decimal numeration system in his region (our article about which is "Hindu–Arabic numeral system"). If the student were using the symbols conventional in some other country/language, or if (e.g.) England tomorrow collectively decided, Brexit-like, to adopt slightly different number symbols on a whim, the same claim could be applied without a substantially different meaning. –jacobolus (t) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing that a good dictionary won't solve. Maybe they should ask those kiddies about the Latin alphabet and see what symbols and glyphs they will use. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You really think the author was saying that student could read anything other than the Western digits? Really? Spitzak (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You entirely missed my point again. I really don't understand why you have so much trouble figuring out what I am trying to say, which seems straightforward and obvious to me. What can I do to help make myself clearer to you? –jacobolus (t) 21:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The same could be said to you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of your comments do you think I misinterpreted? –jacobolus (t) 21:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but if I have to guess, I'd say all of them since we seem to be repeating ourselves. M.Bitton (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a link to Decimal in THE VERY FIRST LINE!!! Spitzak (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First, SHOUTING(!!!) is pretty unnecessary, thanks. Secondly, the article we have at decimal does not really effectively cover this subject. It is a somewhat scattered/confused article which can't quite decide if its primary focus should be (A) base ten number systems in general including number names around the world, finger counting, Roman numerals, Chinese numerals, etc., or (B) if its primary focus should be on the extension of the Hindu–Arabic number system to include decimal fractions, including infinite decimals, decimal floating point numbers represented by computers, etc. Though both of those subjects are roughly in the right neighborhood here, neither is a subject appropriate as a target for a typical wiki-link or invocation of the term "Arabic numeral", which is frankly best currently represented on Wikipedia by the article Hindu–Arabic numeral system (though that article is also somewhat mediocre, and could be significantly improved). –jacobolus (t) 21:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please refrain from using the word system as it has no place in this article (which is about the Arabic numerals whose definition is widely known). M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These symbols – squiggles on paper or a screen – are not independently meaningful. They only exist within a cultural/formal context (a "numeral system" if you like). If we are going to punt on describing and explaining that system at this particular article, then we should aim to help those readers who are looking for an understanding of the system and some broader context to the relevant article as easily as possible. –jacobolus (t) 22:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether they are meaningful or not is irrelevant as they not what the primary topic is about; besides, they have their own articles. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on instantly removing any links to those articles, which are clearly highly relevant to this one? –jacobolus (t) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on wanting to redirect this article to the other? M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not insisting on that. It was just one suggestion. –jacobolus (t) 22:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A suggestion that you keep insisting on (just look at the number of comments). M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think I am "insisting" on making this specific change, you are perhaps not reading my comments, or not reading very carefully? –jacobolus (t) 22:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is an absolute proven fact that when the Hindu-Arabic numeral system was invented, these symbols were not used. They appeared hundreds of years later. I have no idea why you want to insult the Hindu inventors so much by claiming that their system could not be used without the help of Arabs and Europeans to provide this particular set of symbols. Spitzak (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't care whatsoever who gets credit. Call them the "whoopidoo numerals" or the "zipzoop numbers" if you want. I just don't think this article does a very good job answering the questions typical readers might be expected to have when they arrive here because its focus and scope are not aligned with the way the term is typically used, and don't think it does a very good job relating itself to other adjacent Wikipedia articles that are more directly focused on those questions.
 * But while we're at it: Why are you so invested in eliminating any mention of India? Why do you care so much about crediting some anonymous 9th century northern African instead of a 6th century Indian? (Or whatever.) If we want to get down to it, the specific symbols used by Europeans were not ever exactly used by any Arabs either, and evolved non-trivially after arriving in Europe. –jacobolus (t) 21:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Typical readers are fully aware of the meaning of common terms and know at the very least how to use a dictionary, so we don't need to call anything other then what it's know as. M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How is an external dictionary going to help someone looking for a Wikipedia article about a different subject than the one they arrived at because it didn't properly match the scope of the wikilinked term they clicked? –jacobolus (t) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to because the definition of a common name is widely known. The dictionaries are for those who have yet to discover simple known facts (like the second graders that you keep mentioning). M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here: "second graders" comes from an example sentence I pulled from a paper that appeared in a google scholar search for "arabic numerals". The second graders in question are the subject of the paper, not the intended audience for Wikipedia.
 * If the author of a paper (or blog post, or other Wikipedia article) about math education wanted to put a Wikipedia link on the term "Arabic numerals" in that specific example sentence or any of the others I listed, it would be more relevant to readers (e.g. math education researchers, teachers, or laypeople interested in education) to arrive at an article about the number system, not an article about the evolution of the glyph shapes. –jacobolus (t) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Any educated person who's interested in the system will be able to find it. This article (about the known Arabic numerals) has such word in it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What people "could" find if they spent a lot of effort hunting is a poor criterion for making decisions about basic scope, organization, and inter-linking of Wikipedia articles. To paraphrase "yeah our article completely ignores basic questions, but that's the readers' fault". –jacobolus (t) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your POV. The article is about a common term that is widely known. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes evolution of the symbols would be very interesting. For instance you can see the Easter Arabic seems to use sideways versions so they are linked, and certainly those must trace back to symbols used in India (unfortunately the modern Indian symbols have also diverged considerably from the original so my understanding is that there is little information on what was used). Obviously further evolution of the symbols in Europe is interesting too. It would be nice if all this information was in this article, but this article should remain being called "Arabic Numerals". Spitzak (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell (from skimming talk page archives here), you have defined the evolution of numerals on other branches of the symbol evolution tree (e.g. Eastern Arabic numerals) or before ~900 AD to be out of scope for this article, and quickly revert any attempts even mention those subjects or link to other articles discussing them, perhaps as part of a general effort to avoid any mention of India? I have no dog in the whose-ancestors-deserve-credit-for-millennium-old-discoveries fight which seems totally pointless to me.
 * I just want to make sure that readers can find the information they are looking for, that our articles are unbiased to the extent possible, that each article has a reasonably well defined scope and clear narrative flow, that articles have clear organizational relationships to each-other, and so on. I don't think this article currently does a great job on most of those criteria, and my impression is that a bit of an WP:OWNership culture has arisen among a few editors here that is preventing the article from improving or reflecting broader Wikipedia community consensus. –jacobolus (t) 22:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Arabic numerals are derived from the Eastern Arabic numerals, so it makes sense to mention that part. If someone wants to dig deeper, they will follow the link and keep going until they reach the Chinese Shang numerals. Please, do me a favour and speak for yourself only (you are not the community). M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which link are you referring to? I tried twice to add a link to History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, an article which is unquestionably relevant to the "origin" section of this article, and both times you instantly reverted the link. –jacobolus (t) 22:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Eastern Arabic numerals. M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which chain of links are you imagining a reader should follow that ends at "Chinese Shang numerals" or "Shang numerals" (note, red links) or if not, can you explain what you have in mind? What conclusion are you expecting readers to draw from that. Please be specific.
 * From what I can tell there is no clear evidence that ancient Chinese number systems were ancestors of ancient Indian ones, and from a web search speculation about it seems mostly more like fringe agenda-pushing than a summary of scholarly consensus. Broadly similar ancient systems arose in many places independently (Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Mexico, ...). –jacobolus (t) 22:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks as though you are deciding what the readers should and shouldn't read. One more reason not to take that route (this article of a well known subject is fine as it is). In any case, what needed to be said has been said and since we are clearly going round in circles, I see no point in continuing this long and fruitless discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "If someone wants to dig deeper, they will follow the link and keep going until they reach the Chinese Shang numerals." This seems implausible to me, so I am asking: can you please be specific about which links you think this hypothetical "someone" should be following on their way to your proposed destination? –jacobolus (t) 23:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I said a lot of things to try to follow your logic and make you understand that your request is unreasonable, but most important of all, I said that since we are going round in circle, I see no point in continuing this long and fruitless discussion. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not going around in a circle. I made a bunch of claims, you ignored them, missed the point of the others, and then started responding with non sequiturs. I then asked you some simple direct questions and you keep changing the subject. –jacobolus (t) 23:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton – Since you entirely ignored my discussion about it above, I am assuming you have conceded my point that these articles (Hindu–Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system) are obviously and essentially relevant to this article and must be linked prominently. Your continued reverts here and refusal to discuss do not seem like evidence of an effort to establish consensus, but rather an insistence on imposing your personal ideology. Please re-read WP:OWN. If you insist on having a revert war, we should try to take this to a broader venue, e.g. WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Linguistics, or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for more eyeballs. –jacobolus (t) 16:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ignored what? I literally spent hours replying to your comments and I still don't agree with you and nor does Spitzak. I see no point in rehashing the same discussion over and over again. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, given that two editors disagree with you, I'd say that the only editor here who is trying to impose their POV is you. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You entirely ignored everything that came before "Proposal" in my initial comment above, and made no response to any of it. –jacobolus (t) 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You entirely ignored everything that has been said by two editors. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a (not exhaustive) list of edits, primarily by M.Bitton and Spitzak (but perhaps a few other editors tossed in), which reduce, downplay, or eliminate discussions of India or links to Hindu–Arabic numeral system or similar. Some of these are in response to somewhat lazy edits, but others remove relevant and valuable contributions, including eliminating sources and wiki-links, rewording claims in ways that don't match the cited sources, etc., and often engaging in edit wars until the other editors just give up. Overall they form a pattern of imposing a (apparently politically motivated, but who knows) personal/political ideology on this article that is not reflective of Wikipedia consensus, not reflective of scholarly consensus about the origins/history of the positional numeration system currently in widespread use around the world, and not reflective of current language usage in the broader English speaking/writing community. This does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. 852024610, 854968104, 854974185, 861167869, 865214496, 865294339, 865920779, 866324041, 866574511, 879673364, 891636891, 895482946, 895483136, 895483470, 906846321, 906892572, 911949863, 915488201, 923119717, 938732623, 938743792, 945556973, 954086855, 961134309, 967833412, 967877301, 968267187, 968267187, 968267750, 979608717, 979614023, 1005830857, 1017407082, 1019119714, 1019120071, 1019162712, 1019164000, 1029892168, 1038457230, 1040768865, 1045517065, 1045517439, 1049914171, 1051207746, 1056459775, 1056468059, 1062487746, 1062526961, 1064346343, 1065919315, 1071753454, 1085967522, 1097223555, 1101159004, 1101160083, 1101354380, 1101548822, 1107364234, 1111734548, 1129729960, 1143329842, 1144854616, 1145947831, 1146134101, 1165307810. –jacobolus (t) 21:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Casting aspersions is not going to change the fact that you are desperately trying to impose your ridiculous POV. Now that this pathetic discussion has reached a new low, I suggest you do me a favour and refrain from pinging me again. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least, a "see also" that links to Hindu–Arabic numeral system in the origins would be appropriate. Vyvagaba (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote re Hindu–Arabic numeral system
Although the topic of this article is specifically the ten symbols 0, 1, 2, ... 9, many people think of the term "Arabic numerals" as referring to the numeral system we call the Hindu-Arabic numeral system and will thus be intending to arrive at that article when they enter the search term "arabic numerals". That being so, we need a hatnote which directs them to the article they are actually looking for. I tried to do that with this edit but was reverted without comment by. Can someone please say why? Paul August &#9742; 14:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No. There are about a dozen links to decimal and Hindu-Arabic numeral system in there already. Spitzak (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For context, @Spitzak and a couple other editors spent years scrupulously removing every link to Hindu–Arabic numeral system or mention of "Hindu" or "India" from this article, and eventually only relented barely enough to include a couple of scattered links under the pressure of a post at the NPOV noticeboard in which a wide variety of editors expressed their surprise/dismay at this behavior. –jacobolus (t) 01:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When an editor keeps casting aspersions while refusing to take their so-called concerns to ANI, it usually means that they don't have the courage of their convictions and are simply attacking those that stand in the way of their own POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Casting aspersions" means attacking someone's reputation or integrity. Above I am just factually describing behavior, a factual description which is not really controversial. Maybe you can privilege us with an explanation about your motivations for that behavior though? My loose speculation is that there may be some kind of anti-Indian ideology involved, but I'm really not sure, and it's plausible there's some other explanation. –jacobolus (t) 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Commenting on people rather than the content is exactly what you've been doing (that's a factual description of your behaviour). I don't why and I really couldn't care less, all I know is that as a consequence, whatever you have to say now on will be completely ignored (that's the reaction to your actions). M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject I am talking about is you and Spitzak repeatedly (in dozens of edits spread over several years) making edits minimizing or removing any mention of words or links involving "India" or "Hindu" from this page. Most of those were reverts of few-word changes, but others removed descriptive material with cited sources, etc.
 * Neither of you has ever (either in edit summaries or afterward in discussion) offered any clear explanation for your pattern of behavior. So other editors can only speculate.
 * If we just care about "content" rather than "people", I am happy to make substantial content additions to the article, but it's not worth it if a few editors consider that they WP:OWN the article and intend to immediately revert any changes without discussion. –jacobolus (t) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You just confirmed what I said in first comment:
 * When an editor keeps casting aspersions while refusing to take their so-called concerns to ANI, it usually means that they don't have the courage of their convictions and are simply attacking those that stand in the way of their own POV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have limited experience with WP:ANI, and in past experience I have pretty much always been able to come to some kind of local consensus/accommodation with other editors, who in my past experience have been nearly always acting in good faith and interested in finding consensus.
 * Dragging people in front of "administrators" for some kind of community-wide judgement/punishment seems very combative and escalatory, as well as taking a lot of time and effort. I'm not trying to fight you. I just want you to explain yourself, and ideally also try to understand other people's concerns/arguments, which to date you have not seemed at all interested in doing.
 * If at some point I put in significant work to improve these articles and you still have a problem, engage in further edit warring, etc., I would go to a wider community (e.g. starting with history / mathematics wikiprojects), and would be willing to escalate to ANI if that seems necessary. But it sounds like quite an unpleasant ordeal to be honest. –jacobolus (t) 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also most people think it includes the decimal point, so it is absolutely not the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Spitzak (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. "Arabic numerals" or "Arabic numbers" in common usage refers to what mathematicians call the "numeral system". There used to be a hatnote, e.g.,, which seems to have been removed during the "clean-up" that mentions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which "numeral system" (there are of course many)? There is currently a hat note which directs the user to decimal, which is about the decimal numeral system, which our article "defines" as the Hindu-Arabic numeral system extended to include non integers (although it's not clear to me that the term "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" is usually used to refer to a numeral system which only involves integers. Paul August &#9742; 14:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Arabic numerals" of course refers to the "Arabic numeral system", which has been relabelled as "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" by common consensus. Here is a satirical take on what it all means. No mention of any "system". As to whether decimal fractions should be included in it, I don't think I can say anything definitive. Some authors include it, and others don't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The name decimal should probably have its scope changed to be about about base ten in general (which redirects to it), which is the intended subject of many if not most of the inbound wikilinks pointed there, and which would properly match binary number, hexadecimal, sexagesimal, quinary, etc.
 * That it currently instead makes decimal fractions (which also redirect there) its primary definition is a historical accident that was never carefully considered. –jacobolus (t) 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Arabic numerals" of course refers to the "Arabic numeral system" A baseless assertion doesn't become a fact when repeated ad nauseam by the same editor who casts aspersions at anyone who disagrees with them. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC) mistook who made the comment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack. Please refrain from making such attacks in the future. Paul August &#9742; 15:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not (it's description of what they did and keep doing). Do you agree with them casting aspersions again (see their comment above) despite the fact that they have been asked to refrain from doing so? M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which comment are you referring to? I think you may be confused about which editor wrote "Arabic numerals" of course refers to the "Arabic numeral system" Paul August &#9742; 15:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confused about which editor wrote Indeed, I only saw the last signature. I have struckthrough my comment and suggest you do the same as that was an honest mistake. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No matter your mistake, you're comment was still a personal attack, and I'm still asking you to refrain from making such. Paul August &#9742; 17:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not (it's a description of what they did and keep doing, i.e. casting WP:ASPERSIONS). I repeat the question that I asked you earlier: do you agree with them casting aspersions again (see their comment above) despite the fact that they have been asked to refrain from doing so? If not, why didn't you say anything, even when they doubled down on them and left no doubt about the fact that they are deliberately commenting on editors rather content? M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you deny your comment was about a person and not about content?? I take 's comments to be asking for an explanation for a pattern of editing. I don't see where it has been asserted that the motives for such edits are inappropriate. Paul August &#9742; 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you see them deliberately commenting on editors rather than content? M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying two wrongs make a right? Paul August &#9742; 18:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that what they did is wrong? M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said what I'm saying. Paul August &#9742; 18:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So have I. M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your linked page says it is unacceptable to accuse someone of off-wiki "criminal acts [...] or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible", "accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause", make "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view", etc. I am not doing any of these things. I am just repeatedly asking you to explain yourself, while you are repeatedly refusing to do so. I never claimed you were any kind of criminal or shill, or that your behavior was "morally reprehensible". Please stop exaggerating and please stop changing the subject. If you want to have a discussion of content, that would be great; every time I try to discuss the content you deflect onto a tangential digression or start wiki-lawyering. –jacobolus (t) 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have looked at the article. There is a hatnote already there! It was deleted temporarily by an anonymous editor (173.2.181.25) but that was reverted. So this discussion is pretty much moot. Spitzak (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Paul August changed the hatnote. You immediately reverted him. Then he asked, "I tried to do that with this edit but was reverted without comment by Spitzak. Can someone please say why?" To which you replied "No."
 * Which part do you consider "moot"? –jacobolus (t) 16:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's possible that Hindu-Arabic numeral system is supposed to include inventions done by Arabs (ie the decimal point)? However currently both the Decimal and Hindu-Arabic numeral system articles specifically refute this idea in the first or second sentence. IMHO the first should be called the "Hindu numeral system", the current wording just sounds too much like PC-run-amuk with a substitution of a term that is even more misleading than before that gets Wikipedia a bad reputation. I also still feel that implying that decimal could not be written until these digits were designed is really insulting to the Hindu and Arab mathematicians! Spitzak (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Arabic numbers" or "Arabic numerals" was the conventional name for this number system in Europe, because it was transmitted to Europe from Arabic. My understanding is that in most Arabic speaking countries, the numbers are called something like "Hindu numbers".
 * In the past few decades most scholarly sources now use the name "Hindu–Arabic numbers" or "Hindu–Arabic numerals". Whether this is "PC-run-amok" is a matter of opinion, but Wikipedia should generally be in the business of describing scholarly consensus rather than trying to shape it. –jacobolus (t) 16:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arabs call the Eastern Arabic digits "Hindu numerals" making it even more wrong to use this term. Spitzak (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Most?) Arabs call the numerals they use when writing in Arabic something like "Hindu numerals". These are the same concept as the numerals we use in English – both sets of symbols are used to represent identical referents, the digits 0–9, in precisely the same way. Both types should be clearly described at any page entitled "Arabic numerals"; splitting the type used in Arabic off into a side article away from the main topic (with much lower viewership) is an entirely artificial and Euro-centric construction you have imposed. –jacobolus (t) 03:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why there is a hatnote for Eastern arabic numerals right at the top! Spitzak (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand: hat note for Hindu-Arabic numeral system
Since many people think of the term "Arabic numerals" as referring to the numeral system we call the Hindu-Arabic numeral system (I think everyone agrees with this) and will thus be intending to arrive at that article when they enter the search term "arabic numerals" it seem that we need a hatnote which directs them to the article they are actually looking for. There has been some support for this above. Does anyone oppose this? Paul August &#9742; 13:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a hat note! Spitzak (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah I see you've added it after "decimal", earlier today, thanks. Paul August &#9742; 17:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The hat note was already there and decimal had a link in it's very first paragraph, I added this because apparently people don't even click before complaining. It would be much more productive to investigate if decimal and Hindu-Arabic are the same system and the articles merged, or determine exactly why the word Arabic is in the name. Spitzak (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes there was a hat note to decimal, but that didn't help some reader who was looking for information about what is called the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, without knowing they would find a link to Hindu-Arabic numeral system in the article named Decimal. The current hat note is better. As for whether decimal and Hindu-Arabic are the same system, I've added "citation needed" templates in both articles' assertion that the Hindu-Arabic numeral system does not include non-integers. Paul August &#9742; 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely doubtful that somebody would know it is called "Hindu-Arabic" and not type that directly in, but whatever... I am bummed that apparently you have to use the word "and", trying to make it use "or" did not make the template work, as it currently sounds like these are non-intersecting subjects. I think also some very serious investigation needs to be done as to why the word "Arabic" is in the name and whether it is misleading. Spitzak (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)