Talk:Arabic numerals/Archive 1

message: I have moved the history talk to Talk:History of Indian and Arabic numerals page. Interested editors please continue your debate about history there. deeptrivia (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Each time I try to maintain this change it gets removed by multiple editors (I suspect sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but I won't stand to that claim).  There is no need for consensus for breaking off part of the article into a subarticle, especially if it is done so in order to maintain order on the main article.  The original was bold in his actions, and those who are reverting it are not doing much more than vandalism. Peyna 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk moved

message: I have an important question regarding the name of this article. Why should this page not be moved to Hindu-Arabic numerals, given the fact that this is how all other encyclopedias (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica) name the article, and this is how it is referred to in modern academic papers. Even on the internet, most sources (e.g. ) refer to the numerals as Hindu-Arabic numerals. Even in this article itself (including the controversial new additions), Hindu-Arabic is used all the time. deeptrivia (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you call something "controversial" you have to provide evidence that there's a real, reputable controversy. Just because something proves that your biases led you to false and distorted beliefs and you don't like it does not mean it's "controversial", it just means that you were in error, as you had been and as you still are. I have demanded many times that you prove that the additions I made, which reported the scientific consensus and cited reliable sources, were "controversial" by citing evidence. You have not done so. Until you do so I demand that you shut up about it, because I'm not interested in your original lies. Get your sources, and then we'll talk. You should understand that this site - Wikipedia - has policies and you are expected to abide by them; the edit box states in clear terms that "Content... must be based on verifiable sources." Why aren't you abiding by wikipedia policies that "content must be based on verifiable sources"; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Because you know your content consists of original lies. You have been asked many times to provide verifiable and reliable sources on a point-by-point basis like I did, you've not done so, I therefore have no reason to accept your nonsense, which I have proved to be in error at length and in detail. csssclll 15:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That would probably make sense , but we must then decide what to do with the material that already exists at the current Hindu-Arabic numerals page. --Vertaloni 14:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently Hindu-Arabic numerals just redirects here; so really deeptrivia is just proposing that we reverse the redirect and have this article point there. Peyna 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Yup, that's what my proposal is. I think it makes sense. deeptrivia (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I refuse that. I refuse redirects from this article, and especially so given the history of strong biases shown repeatedly by those proposing such redirect. This article is about the Arabic numerals and should remain so, in particular the Arabic Western Numerals;  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The Indian Numerals article should be about the Indian numerals, Devanagari and others,  १, २, ३, ४, ५, ६, ७, ८, ९, and *NOT* about the Arabic numerals. I wish to redirect all those Hindu nationalist editors on this page to the Indian numerals one because it needs serious work on what should really be its topic. I have made distinction between a numeral system (Hindu-Arabic numerals) and a specific numeral script (Arabic Western, Arabic Eastern, Devanagari, etc). There should be a page for the Hindu-Arabic numerals system that makes mention and links to the various numeral scripts within it, but this Arabic Numerals article should remain to its topic.  csssclll 16:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Beside this Indophobic rant, do you have any other reasonable argument on why wikipedia should not follow the academic norms about numeral system naming conventions? This article is about numeral system and not a numeral script, a topic which is generally covered in the script articles (eg in Arabic script, Devanagari script etc). I won't mind renaming it as Arabic numeral script or Arabic numeral symbols, and having an another article called Hindu-Arabic numerals, with the page Arabic numerals serving as a disambiguation page. deeptrivia (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I still think User:cssscll is confused between a numeral system and numeral symbols. He admits that the numeral system is "Hindu-Arabic", while the symbols are Arabic, and I think that's fine. Numeral symbols come packed with a script, and in India itself there are about a dozen variants that look quite different. These symbols are all discussed on the corresponding script pages. This whole series of article here is about numeral systems (see the template on the right of the article.) This article is supposed to (as it did until last month) talk about the Hindu-Arabic numeral system as contrasted to the Roman, Maya or Greek numeral systems. There are dozens of symbol sets that are used to work with this numeral system. We can write a section in this article about the various symbol sets employed to use this numeral system. deeptrivia (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I'm submitting this to WP:RfC to bring in some more outside views on the dispute.  I would highly recommend that any editors involved in the dispute refrain from any editting, reverting, etc. for the next several days. Peyna 16:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The reference of http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2003/06/01-95210802.html should be replaced with a more reliable source if possible.  At the moment, while it is an impressive article, it's just a blog posting by an anonymous author.  If someone can track down something that provides the same information referenced from there that is more "reliable" it would be appreciated. Peyna 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think I'm starting to get a hang of this whole situation and here is what I propose be done to "fix" whatever problem may or may not exist.
#Rename this article to Arabic numerals (Hindu)
#Rename Abjad numerals to Arabic numerals (Abjad)
#Rename History of Indian and Arabic numerals to something more appropriate
#Provide disambig and redirect pages as appropriate
#Move all content on the history of these numerals and how they propogated throughout the world and their origin to that article
#Stop the edit war.
Thanks. Peyna 17:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally in agreement with Zocky. Arabic numerals are simply 0123456789. This article should reflect that and the title should remain as it is. -- Svest 17:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propositions 

message: This article stays that way Csssclll wants it, except:
:*The numeral systems table on the right is removed.
:*There is a disambiguation remark on the top, saying something like: This article is about the Arabic numeral symbols. For Arabic numeral system, see Hindu-Arabic numerals.
The Hindu-Arabic numerals article will:
* discuss exclsively the numeral system (like the place value concept, the concept of zero, etc), and will not talk about symbols.
* Will have  on the right, which will be modified accordingly.
deeptrivia (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! No problems. Actually, the confusion stems from the fact that while for example the Roman numeral system corresponds to a unique set of symbols (and so both can be covered in the same article), for the Hindu-"Arabic" numeral system, there are many symbol sets. I guess it would be fine to call it Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as long as the numeral systems table is on that article, the table itself is modified to link to that article, and the Arabic numerals article has a disambiguation line pointing to that article. I think it is a good solution. deeptrivia (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: To answer Zocky, the reason we ended up discussing all this here is that what is known as "Arabic numerals" is a specific symbol set used to work with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but the table on the right classified it as a numeral system on its own right.  deeptrivia (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further suggestions 

message: * Created Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Please contribute. 
* Updated the Table
* Redirected links: Still in progress, the list is huge. Help on this will be very highly appreciated. (The complete list is here)
Thanks :) deeptrivia (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I've moved some more discussion  Since some editors seem to have failed to read the above, let my try to explain the agreed points again:
*Hindu-Arabic numeral system is the article about the current state of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system.
**History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is the article about its history.
*Indian numerals is an article about numerals used in Indian scripts.
*Arabic numerals is a page about what are called Arabic numerals in English. This does not include indian numerals.
I will leave it to other editors to revert to the last version of this article that is actually about Arabic numerals, as defined by English dictionaries. Please continue other debates on appropriate talk pages. Zocky 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article is about, part 3 

message: A whole bunch of discussion threads are missing and I don't feel like straightening this mess out so whomever did it should fix it.--Vertaloni 04:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the comment above, the discussion you're looking for is probably at Talk:History of Indian and Arabic numerals. Peyna 04:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Vertaloni, your reversions away from talk page consensus isn't constructive. -Frogular 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page vandalism

message: Here is a shot of a telephone keypad in Cairo Egypt that shows the Arab symbols they use for numbers even today next to their  equivalent Western numerals. The arabs use their symbol system ,(not the western symbols ) everywhere in the Arab world.
--Astriolok 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See this page where it says "Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya use only Western numerals". This is important because the West (Europe) got those numerals from those North African Arab countries and Arab Spain, not from Egypt. csssclll (03:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Even today in Arab countries they do not use "Arabic Numerals" 

message: * Other encyclopedias like Britannica , refer to the symbols exclusively as "Hindu-Arabic" everywhere they are mentioned.  
* According to another article on Britannica, titled "The Hindu-Arabic system" , the numerals are "commonly spoken of as Arabic but preferably as Hindu-Arabic."
* Definitely preferred by scholars, e.g., as per Peter Wardley   
::"`Hindu-arabic' is preferred over `arabic' as a more accurate and useful description for two reasons: first, it places primacy on the region where this system of numerical representation had its origins, the Indian sub-continent; and, second, it draws attention to the difference between the numerals currently used in Arabic countries and those adopted by Europeans after the introduction of various adaptations. The latter, of course, has become the internationally accepted system of numerical representation." 
I think the fact that articles in research papers and other encyclopedias (that are written by professional people who are rigorous scholars, who are paid a lot of money for their work, and who are held accountable for what they write, and are peer-reviewed at many levels) exclusively use the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals", has a lot of weight.
deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here, "Preferred" --> preferred for scholarly articles (like this one is intended to be) and not necessarily for common day-to day discourse. deeptrivia (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *The "google test" is not all that persuasive.  There are a lot of terms that have a more popular usage, but we wouldn't make that the "official" title of an encyclopedia article.  Especially when the name is ambiguous.  Look at Native American for an example.  A lot of people use the term as a blanket to cover all of the indigenous people of North America, but the article about that group is titled "Indigenous peoples of the Americas," which is certainly a much less widely used term, but it is used because it is the most accurate and most descriptive for an encyclopedia.  You'll note that they also have articles of "Indigenous peoples of the United States," "Native Americans in the United States," and other breakdowns.  Just because most people call them "Native Americans" or "Indians" doesn't meant that is the most appopriate title for the article about them.  The same applies here. Peyna 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the title should be changed to Hindu-Arabic numerals.  It even says in my American C++ book that these numerals were Hindu and the arabs took them.  --Dangerous-Boy 07:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some reasons for changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals 

message: Okay, I made some more changes.  I added a disambig at the top for the main article on the numeral system; this article is about the numeral symbols.  I removed most of the information regarding history (since it was about the numeral system) and information about the numeral system (because it is covered at Hindu-Arabic numeral system.  The name of the article should be changed, and I might just go ahead and move it here in a little bit and put up a redirect soon.  Peyna 03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the good work, Peyna! deeptrivia (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I went ahead and moved the article and made other appropriate changes.  I am in the process of changing all incoming links to Arabic numerals to point here. Peyna 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Peyna! Of course I'll give you a hand in redirecting incoming links. It's a lot of work! deeptrivia (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's a gazillion of them.  I did this once before; when I put up a disambig for DES.  I'll start at the bottom of the list and work my way up.  Peyna 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your hard work! deeptrivia (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved 

message: I'll cut a paste from my previous objection... 
* "... 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.
***deeptrivia claimed to have a good source demonstrating that they were not widely used except by mathemeticians and traders. Peyna 03:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it is already recognized that traders and mathematicians knew about the system. Traders were in fact the first to know such things because they came in contact with the East most frequently. Here, we are talking about widespread use of the system by common people. I mentioned even before this particular discussion started that since I don't have access to that reference any more (it was a book about history of astronomy), I would encourage others to find out citations. I agree that the above passage, which was not intended as a proof by me does not rule out the logical possibility of the numerals gaining popularity in Arabia by the 11th century. deeptrivia (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a reference can't be verified by others then it's of no use; it's not verifiable and therefore not reliable. I don't know what you mean by "common people", but I think it's fair to assume that many of them, if not most, were illiterate. The above "passage" is from 662, and therefore is irrelevant as an argument against one from "the beginning of the eleventh century". We don't need to "rule out logical possibility" here, we have evidence from "the beginning of the eleventh century" that the system was "fairly widespread and, quite significantly, was known to a vegetable trader", and I would consider a vegetable trader "common people", just as J J O'Connor and E F Robertson clearly do, and I wouldn't call "the beginning of the eleventh century", in any way, "modern times".  csssclll (05:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems a fairly obvious conclusion from these sources that these numerals were at some point (after the 10th century) widely used by the Arabs -Frogular 07:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  since what are known in English as "Arabic numerals" were neither invented nor widely used by the Arabs.  

message: Did any of you notice the empty gap in the middle of the page? How long are you planning on leaving it there? --Vertaloni 06:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest that the place to start is the opening section: if anyone is brave enough to try to summarize the kB of (mostly) scholarly discussion on this talk page... Physchim62 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tired of fixing page display

message: It is starting to make some sense , though it needs more work particularly in the history timeline.--Astriolok 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Made some improvements to the article 

message: Deeptrivia, here's a little trivia for you, an Arab is a linguistic designation, and most of the time is *not* a racial designation. Al-Khwarizmi, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, is an Arab, regardless of where his ancestry or parents may have come from; he lived in Baghdad and worked in its House of Wisdom, he spoke Arabic and wrote his manuscripts in Arabic, and some historians, like Al-Tabari say he was born near Baghdad though his ancestors were from Persia. There's no contradiction in that, him being both Persian and Arab, just like someone from Sudan is both a Black African and an Arab, or someone from Algeria is both a Berber and an Arab. Here's another trivia, the "Arab" army that invaded Spain in 711 AD was ~ 4% ethnic Arabs (ie, ~96% non-Arabs), yet it's called the "Arab invasion of Spain". It really doesn't matter, if you speak Arabic, you're an Arab, and anyone from India, Malaysia or Indonesia, or anywhere else can become an Arab if they want to. This recently happened with the Comoros Islands, which is situated between Mozambique and Madagascar; it is now a member of the Arab League. Here's an article by an Arab Jew that explains this, I think it's worth reading if you want to understand what "Arab" means. csssclll (05:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopædia Britannica and all the other major encyclopedias point where he was born is Khwarazm located in Transoxania (Great Khorasan). The fact that nearlly all his works where in Arabic was simply because (unfortunately) the scientific language on that time because of initial suppression of Persian language was Arabic as many other Persian scientist wrote some of their books in Arabic however things started to change after compilation of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh where Perian became once again the Scientific language in Iran. This case is not uncommon, its a tradition where Arab nationalist call some of the Persian scientists Arab. Avicenna is a good example of this manner. Amir85 12:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not true, Encyclopædia Britannica clearly points out that he was born in Baghdad. csssclll (10:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Designating Al-Khwarizmi as Persian is more appropriate, and the change has already been made by deeptrivia. -Frogular 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reply to Frogular, Amir85, and Zereshk, I was pointing out to Deeptrivia what the problem was with his statement in his edit summary: "08:20, 16 December 2005 Deeptrivia (?Origins of the symbols - Al Khwarizmi is NOT Arab, Iranians will be disgusted)" Why wouldn't he be Arab? It's not known for sure that he was born in Persia, some historians say that and his parents migrated to Baghdad while he was a child, though even so it could be that, as his name suggests, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Shakir Al-Khwarizmi, and the fact that his father was a high official in the palace, that he's of Arab origin despite being born in Persia, others - in fact, perhaps most - say he was born in Baghdad itself or near it; Brittanica itself states that he was born in Baghdad (see the first link), but what is certain is that he had an Arabic name, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Shakir Al-Khwarizmi, he lived and worked in Baghdad most if not all of his life, not in Persia, he spoke and wrote in Arabic, not Persian, and scholars widely consider him an Arab mathematician. Why wouldn't he be Arab?  user:csssclll:csssclll (10:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Also, I request your opinion on this Talk:History_of_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system#Deeptrivia.2C_did_you_make_a_racist_slur.3F.21 user:csssclll:csssclll (11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeptrivia, Al-Khwarizmi was an Arab 

message: It seems clear by now that csssclll is dedicated to introducing falsehoods into this article . He keep trying to give spin the numerals as an being an Arab product despite clear evidence that Arabs had little to do with the numerals , beyond a few books being written on the subject of Indian Numerals and those books then being translated into Latin by Europeans. csssclll is trying to insert the spin that the Arabs modified the glyphs , when they did not. They did not even adopt the numerals themselves. Astriolok
:Astriolok, the Europeans learned about the numerals from Arabian books, so Arabs had a role in transmission of the numerals, which ought to be mentioned. Please acknowledge that.deeptrivia (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Astriolok, you have not tried to resolve your gripes with the version you disagree with on the talk page, and reverted back to your preferred version of the intro text, not just once, but four times  in 24 hours, conveniently leaving out any reference to reverting in the edit summary 3 out of the 4 times. There is a reason the scholarly term is "Hindu-Arabic numerals" (yes, "Hindu" comes before "Arabic" because credit is given where credit is due), not "Hindu numerals" nor "Arabic numerals". Please assume that the editors for the version you disagree with are not intentionally trying to aggravate you but are making the edits in good faith. -Frogular 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed , the numerals were transmitted via the books written on the topic by Al-Khwarizmi, and Al-kindi etc and that is part of the version I support but just because someone writes a book on cars does not mean that they invented or modified cars which is clearly the implication csss wants to introduce. As far as resolving the gripes on the talk page I have had discussions on the talk page for months , some of which have conveniently been blanked out by some , others which are apparantly conveniently disregarded. I am interested in accuracy in Wikipedia not revisionism which seems to be the goal on the part of some editors.--Astriolok 17:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  csssclll 's edits

message: Hi folks, looks like this article has been busy.  I would suggest moving back to Arabic numerals per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).  Furthermore on disputes Assume Good Faith.  If I can help, please let me know. Rich   Farmbrough. 15:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to expand a bit, further to converstion with Deeptrivia, the MoS reommends the common name for the title, and the more "scholarly" for the text. At the moment we have it the other way round. Rich   Farmbrough. 16:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we basically have to choose between Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) among other things. I'll be interested to know what others think. deeptrivia (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a tough choice... if I could split my vote, it would be 0.51 for Arabic numerals and 0.49 for Hindu-Arabic numerals. heh heh. -Frogular 16:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I vote to retain Hindu-Arabic, especially as there are two Wikipedia conventions split over this - if you remove Hindu, you discredit a whole culture's root contribution to the genesis of mathematics, even if you didn't mean to do so.
Jai Sri Rama!
Rama's Arrow 17:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hindu-Arabic is fine, although it would be correctly stated as Hindu -Numerals unless someone can make a case for what part the arabs actually had in the numerals besides having written a few books on the topic of Indian Numerals.--Astriolok 17:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: we need a vote.  Support moving to Arabic numerals, or oppose to keep at Hindu-Arabic numerals  (comment: we vote between titles, not between actions. mikka (t) 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "`Hindu-arabic' is preferred over `arabic' as a more accurate and useful description for two reasons: first, it places primacy on the region where this system of numerical representation had its origins, the Indian sub-continent; and, second, it draws attention to the difference between the numerals currently used in Arabic countries and those adopted by Europeans after the introduction of various adaptations. The latter, of course, has become the internationally accepted system of numerical representation." 
==== "Arabic Numerals" title  ====
* Support move to Arabic numerals, per MoS. -lethe talk 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that this debate was very politicized. However, let's just focus on getting a decision on the referendum.
Rama's Arrow 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, that's why we worked on, and developed a consensus earlier. deeptrivia (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for title

message: * Support move to Arabic numerals, per MoS. -lethe talk 17:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arabic Numerals" title  

message: #This was already decided in the past (not all that long ago either); Hindu-Arabic is the more appropriate Academic name for the numerals.  Relevant discussion should be above or archived.  Peyna 18:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hindu-Arabic numerals" title 

message: I just visited this page and don't plan to stick around. What saddens me though, is that a serious discussion about the proper name for this article is turning into a Hindu nationalist argument. Nothing good happens when people with strong nationalistic tendencies try to force things one way or another, be that Arab nationalists, or Hindu nationalists, or any other kind. Please try to keep the debate in the appropriate venue. That applies to votes 2 and 4 above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this debate was very politicized. However, let's just focus on getting a decision on the referendum.
Rama's Arrow 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, that's why we worked on, and developed a consensus earlier. deeptrivia (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Whatever your decision, please keep in mind the tradition of wikipedia to make titles in singular rather than plural, for a number of reasons. mikka (t) 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Singular/plural

message: According to a consensus of opinions expressed by people like DaGizza, Kwamikagami, Subramanian, Raj2004, Deeptrivia, Peyna and myself, I've reverted the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals.
I ask all participants in this debate to honor this title for the time being. The previous status quo was not similarly acceptable as it was completely arbitrary. This was the agreed-to title. 
I have no intentions of undercutting this debate or increasing the heat, but simply honoring a prior decision which was taken last week. 
I sincerely hope an administrator will watch these proceedings.
Jai Sri Rama!
Rama's Arrow 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't speak of "consensus" when there is active disagreement that you choose to omit. The decision taken last week was esssentially Deeptrivia's (find "redirect" on this page) and acted upon in a rush and without gatheting "consensus" despite strong, clear and reasonable opposition from many editors. If there is any consensus that's worth a relevance it is the conensus amongst the English speakers en masse that 1, 2, 3 are "Arabic numerals". csssclll (22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Since I've been involved with this debate for awhile, I feel I ought to let everyone know I have decided to leave this debate, for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the attitude of a lot of the parties involved.  First off, I entered this discussion to try to reach some kind of compromise and end the needless revert war.  Instead, it has turned into some kind of ethnic/racist issue with people calling in their friends to bolster their point of view.  Second, the discussion has rarely been civil.  Finally, I'm tired of the reverting and lack of honest discussion.  The issue needs resolved, but the current group of people have no interest in resolving this conflict.  Therefore, I am withdrawing my participation in this discussion and you may ignore or make use of any prior comments I have made.  Good luck, and for Wikipedia's sake, please resolve this. Peyna 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that it went this way, and I have myself felt like stopping wasting my time on it. But I hope it will finally end now, and I really appreciate your valuable inputs into the discussion. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parting words 

message: Are 12345 etc used in arab countries today? It says in Eastern Arabic numerals that those numerals are used in Egypt, and on Arabic_script#Numerals that North Africa uses 123, but what about the other arab countries? -- Astrokey44|talk 04:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab numerals 

message: this argument is stupid. Arabs learned this numbers from Persians who in turn learn from Indians. so it is correct for Arabs to call it Hindu numerals. And Europeans learn it from arabs so they mistakenly call it arab numericals. the appearence of numbers might changed along the way but the fact remains aslphabets 0 to 10 originated to india and spread everywhere.in other word like it or not it is indian numerals. give credit where it is due.
:I find you comments disturbing. For one thing, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to reform the English language, nor to abuse the Wikipedia to further a political agenda. Second of all, Arabic numerals did not have a single time or place of origin, but evolved in stages. Even though many of those stages occurred in India, the numerals did not originate there, a fact that scholars discovered in the 19th century. The earliest Brahmi numerals, the archetypes of which can be found in the Asoka inscriptions, were the cursive forms of the Saka numerals developed by Buddhist scribes in Central Asia. Scholars are still divided over the question of whether the development of these numerals was indigenous to the Saka, or if they were borrowed from another culture. Even though there is no clear consensus, most scholars tend to lean towards the hypothesis that Saka numerals were modified from the Aramaic, the same source as Brahmi script. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: number zero was first used as number in india. if u look at devanagari scripts and arabic scripts neither both show resemblence to modern numericals. modern numbers descends from both from spain when it was ruled by arabs. since arabs generally use eastern arab numericals..and modern numerical are less common among them, the word "arab" should be droped;. why not say  "modern numericals" to avoid confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 12:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  hindu arabic, indo arabic, or hindu muslim