"

 Examples of errors in this version 

These are examples, not a comprehensive list. While typing it I had the very off-putting feeling that I had already done this several times, evidenced here. It hasn't worked with you, you're still unreasaonble, but I do it anyway for emphasis, and for the benefit of others. 

 ""The term ""Arabic numerals"" is actually a misnomer""
 This smacks of political revisionism of the worst kind; what is known in English as the Arabic Numerals are the Arabic Western Numerals, not even the Arabic Eastern Numerals. Yes, they are derived from ancient Indian numerals but nonetheless they are the Arabic Numerals. Look here, the norm is that when people in English say Arabic Numerals they are referring to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, those are the Arabic (Western) Numerals, they are not referring to १, २, ३, ४, ५, ६, ७, ८, ९, and other varities of Indian numerals, modern or ancient. They are known in English as the Arabic Numerals, that's a fact, I will not accept a revisionist statement that counters a fact so early on in the text the article, the article must start with the factual. I'll accept it under a revisionism section much later on, but it must be balanced there with opinions counter to it (counter to the counterfactual). 

 ""... what are known in English as ""Arabic numerals"" were neither invented nor widely used by the Arabs."", ""In the Arab World—until modern times—the Arabic numeral system was used only by mathematicians. Muslim scientists used the Babylonian numeral system, and merchants used a numeral system similar to the Greek numeral system and the Hebrew numeral system. Therefore, it was not until Fibonacci that the Arabic numeral system was used by a large population.""
 What reliable sources do you have that they were not widely used by the Arabs? Why don't you cite reliable sources? Here's evidence that they were  The numerals though were already in wide use throughout the Arab empire, as Avicenna who was born in 980 tells in his autobiography that he learnt them, as a child, from a humble vegetable seller. He also tells that when his father, in Bukhara, was visited by scholars from Egypt in 997, including Abu Abdullah al-Natili, they taught him more about them. J J O'Connor and E F Robertson point out: He also tells of being taught Indian calculation and algebra by a seller of vegetables. All this shows that by the beginning of the eleventh century calculation with the Indian symbols was fairly widespread and, quite significantly, was known to a vegetable trader.

 ""The first inscriptions using 0 in India have been traced to approximately 200 CE.""
 Why don't you cite reliable sources?! Here, I'll cite some: According to Professor EF Robertson and DR JJ O'Connor, ""The first record of the Indian use of zero which is dated and agreed by all to be genuine was written in 876"" on the Gwalior tablet stone. This is also verified by Professor Lam Lay Yong, an an Effective Member of the International Academy of the History of Science ""the earliest appearance in India of a symbol for zero in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is found in an inscription at Gwalior which is dated 870 AD"". According to Menninger (p. 400): ""This long journey begins with the Indian inscription which contains the earliest true zero known thus far (Fig. 226). This famous text, inscribed on the wall of a small temple in the vicinity of Gvalior (near Lashkar in Central India) first gives the date 933 (A.D. 870 in our reckoning) in words and in Brahmi numerals. Then it goes on to list four gifts to a temple, including a tract of land ""270 royal hastas long and 187 wide, for a flower-garden."" Here, in the number 270 the zero first appears as a small circle (fourth line in the Figure); in the twentieth line of the inscription it appears once more in the expression ""50 wreaths of flowers"" which the gardeners promise to give in perpetuity to honor the divinity."" The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, ""Hindu literature gives evidence that the zero may have been known before the birth of Christ, but no inscription has been found with such a symbol before the 9th century."" I'll accept mention prior to the Gwalior tablet, in fact, the article needs it and I'm planning on doing it once I'm no longer distracted by your nonsense, but such mention must be well-phrased so as not to mislead and contradict scientific consensus, and the phrasing must be limited to the exact intent of verifiable and reliable sources.  

 ""However, it is