Talk:Arabic numerals

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not this nonsense again ... 92.12.23.104 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. But you can't fight the tide of woke ignorance. 92.12.23.104 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's Name

message: 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)
replies: text: These characters were not invented in the Hindu area.Spitzak (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I ask, how do you know that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why don't you refer to Hindu-Arabic Numeral System? 

message: 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)
replies: text: , you had added a  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)
replies: text: The reference does not say "ONLY" these symbols.Spitzak (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hindu-Arabic numerals" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hindu-Arabic numerals and not "Arabic numerals" 

message: You seem to be confusing the Arabic Numerals with the Eastern Arabic Numerals. M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm not. Kazamzam (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe that ? M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: M.Bitton, so? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you mean by that. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  July 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  It is not European or latin digits. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  '''Arabic numerals''' or '''Hindu–Arabic numeral system''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Whoops, I missed the reply here. I am talking about the  templates, not the floating image. –jacobolus (t) 08:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  can we take the boxes out from around the numerals in the lead section? 

message: 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 ☎ 13:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a hat note! Spitzak (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see you've added it after "decimal", earlier today, thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 , I've added "citation needed" templates in both articles' assertion that the Hindu-Arabic numeral system does not include non-integers. Paul August ☎ 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Back to the topic at hand: hat note for [[Hindu-Arabic numeral system]]