Talk:Arabic numerals

Template:Vital article

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.

[1]

Hindu-renaming debate

(All the following paragraphs are on the dame 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)

References

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 ☎ 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 ☎ 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:

• Burnett, Charles (2017), "Arabic Numerals", in Thomas F. Glick (ed.), Routledge Revivals: Medieval Science, Technology and Medicine (2006): An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-1-351-67617-5

-- 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 ☎ 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)

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)

September 2021

@Kautilya3: 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?

According to Al-Biruni, there were multiple forms of numerals in use in India, and "Arabs chose among them what appeared to them most useful". Al-Nasawi wrote in the early eleventh century that the mathematicians had not agreed on the form of numerals, but most of them had agreed to train themselves with the forms now known as Eastern Arabic numerals. The oldest specimens of the written numerals available from Egypt in 873–874 show three forms of the numeral "2" and two forms of the numeral "3", and these variations indicate the divergence between what later became known as the Eastern Arabic numerals and the (Western) Arabic numerals.

References

Or this key passage?

The divergence in the terminology has led some scholars to propose that the Western Arabic numerals had a separate origin in the so-called "ghubār numerals" but the available evidence indicates no separate origin.

References

-- 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 MasterWikian. 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)

@M.Bitton: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 AzizurRahman7 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[2][3] 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)

References

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

@Joshua Issac: 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)

@Joshua Issac: the same goes for Britannica: it's not a reliable source.

 Note: 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)

@Joshua Issac: 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary and tertiary 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)

@M.Bitton: Please lay off the personal attacks (you might want to read Wikipedia: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 ☎ 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)

Spitzak, 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)

July 2022

@Kazamzam: 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)

@CactiStaccingCrane: 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)

@CactiStaccingCrane: 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 (Enyavar summed it quite well). M.Bitton (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0

Historically, the figures, numerals, or digits, have been listed from left to righ (English reading order) beginning with the larges, 9, and ending with the cipher 0.