Jump to content

Talk:Arabic numerals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.171.224.169 (talk) at 01:53, 3 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class Mid‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

should Not the article be named hindu numerals??

Archive

Requested move

Reasons for move

Frankly, I was not impressed by the so-called "overwhelming" support for this version of the page (most of them on invitation). Neither by most of the argumentation now in the archive (well, I read most of it). I support the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) being applied here. There appears no real Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) issue here, otherwise there should be somewhere a link to a page explaining/disambiguating the "other" meaning of Arabic numerals (as it is, it is explained in this page).

Note that for reading the archive, it is not always clear whether a "move" indicates moving from or to this version of the page, since the page has been swapped all throughout the discussion, and then later, during the vote. That's why I take a fresh start for this vote, on a clean slate. --Francis Schonken 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DON'T REFACTOR THIS PAGE - the discussion section for adding comments is below

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support move --Francis Schonken 18:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support return to Arabic numerals, as this page is about the Arabic numerals, not the Indian numerals from which they evolved, nor the Hindu-Arabic numeral system that includes both, nevermind this being the English Wikipedia and 1, 2, 3 are widely known in English as the Arabic numerals. csssclll (22:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose move. I believe that Hindu-Arabic is an accurate term to describe this system's origin and syntheses. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, keep the title Hindu-Arabic. Peyna 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arabic is more familiar name, in accordance with WP Naming Conventions. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Would consider move to Indo-Arabic numerals though. I simply don't see the reason for the present move (yes, I did read the statements below). Ambarish 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move; The Hindus invented it and the Arabs transmitted the system everywhere. Raj2004 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Arabic numerals as per common usage. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would support this move if Hindu-Arabic was an obscure term, but it is both recognizable and more accurate. Subramanian talk 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think current title will appear if someone is searching for "Hindu-Arabic Numerals" or simply "Arabic Numerals", while we will excluding one important part of name if article is moved. Ashish G 06:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I don't think this article needs more debate about the title at the present, although Wikipedia naming conventions do suggest that "Arabic numerals" is the right choice. OTOH, I would like to point out that things like this are not decided by voting, but rather by solid argumentation. The history of the numeral system (who invented it, who spread it, etc.) has nothing to do with naming of this article, and arguments based on it should be discounted. Zocky 06:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, but agree with User:Zocky that accuracy should be attained by refering to the authority on the subject matter and not just by vote (Ref of Enc Britannica is a good example of authority). With due respect to the popular usage, let those terms be redirected to the accurate term. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 11:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose it was developed in India. no renaming should take place.--203.115.76.17 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term Arabic Numeral is as good as calling Netherlands, Holland. Its fairly accepted in Europe about the origin of the number system in India.It would be an injustice to use the same old name because it was in use. I have encountered people in Europe beliving that its of Arab origin meerly because thet know it by that name. The page with Hindu-Arabic Numeral should exsist. Others should note that the number system has originated in India and therefore be named Hindu Numerals. We however settle for an acceptable name, Hindu-Arabic. ~rAGU 15:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Arabic numerals in accordance with WP Naming Conventions. Votes given based on arguments other than naming conventions vs precision are very inappropriate here and suggest non-POV nationalistic bias. See my reply to Ben Aveling for reason. -Frogular 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have to say the term Arabic numerals does seem to be the most commonly used (google). But it reflects a eurocentric viewpoint and how they came to europe vs how they really evolved. I think Hindu-Arabic (Indo-Arabic more so, though the contributors were Hindu) is more appropriate especially since it also has academic acceptability. --Pranathi 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per common usage. We don't call Florida, Spanish Florida. Instead, the origins should be mentioned inside the article Arabic numerals. Cheers -- Svest 00:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree that 'Arabic numerals' is more common usage that I have heard, but is informal and may be a regional bias. Think Enc. Brit. and scholary reference provide strong support for leaving here. --Sajendra 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Arabic numericals is the commonly used term. Most of the people who've opposed the move seem to be Hindus. The article mentions that the system was invented by Hindus, so I don't think we should have a problem here. utcursch | talk 05:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yuber(talk) 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hindu-Arabic Numerals is most accurate. Enc. Britannica, Scholary refrences strongly support and use Hindu-Arabic numerals because this is logical, fair as well as most accurate. Who invented it? Answer:Hindus. Arabs agree with this? Answer:Yes, they themselve use the word Hind in Arabic wrt to these numerals.--Holy Ganga 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose it was developed in India by an Indian Aryabhatta so no renaming should take place. The Arabs just spread it.--Rsrikanth05 13:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose . Hindu-Arabic is most accurate Wordcrasher 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would submit that even though Arabic numeral is the more common term (especially in schools in the US), the Hindu Arabic form is the one preferred by scholars, and the gain in accuracy is more important than sticking to an innacurate common name. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. per Frogular, we cannot even conclude that it's more common among scholars. -lethe talk 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move, as I agree WP conventions should fit common usage, and accuracy issues are handled thoroughly in the first line of the article. Algal 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, but suggest changing references in article to Hindu-Arabic (unless someone's already done this? And Urge people not to take the page name to seriously. Rich Farmbrough. 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose : Hindu-Arabic is the precise term used. The term HA was coined keeping the origin of the numerals in mind. The word Arabic is misleading and incomplete. We're not reinventing the wheel, we're using: 1. A more accurate term 2. A word already in existence. Please do not use google as a final arbiter as Google results are often skewed. The debate also hinges on the word "Hindu"; but there are many instances where the term is used for other purposes: eg. Hindu rate of growth. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, any qualified mathematics books will say Hindu-Arabic numbers. A far more accurate term, there is even another set of numerals that are called Arabic. There may be more hits on Google for Arabic, but sites that use Hindu-Arabic are genrally university sites , educational or famous organisational sites. Also other encyclpedias (Brittanica, World Book, Encarta) all use the term HINDU-ARABIC. Template:DaGizza/Sg 09:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's recall why EB and other encyclopedias decided to go against common usage and call them Hindu-Arabic numerals: People's perceptions are shaped by the labels they use, and an inaccurate label can undo the educational value of accurate content. A lot of people will need the label 'Hindu-Arabic', regardless of what the article says, or the point isn't going to stick. kwami 12:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can disconfirm that "any qualified mathematics books will say Hindu-Arabic numbers." -- hence we should use the common term, which is Arabic numerals. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Much more accurate of origin. --Pamri • Talk 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to the commonly used term. Colonel Tom 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Hindus created it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. Names (with sometimes the exception of names of a person) should be as scholarly and accurate as possible. --Despentes 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hindu origin needs to be referred. A google search brings up lot of websites, Hindu-Arabic is a correct reference - Ganeshk 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Arabic numerals", per Wikipedia naming conventions. "Arabic numerals" receives by far, more usage in English. That's how the students are taught in schools and that's what the textbooks say and math papers have; when the proponents of "Hindu-Arabic" naming refer to the "qualified mathematics books", I am curious as to see fair referencing from both sides. While recognizing the true origin and with all respect to the Indian inventors, more conventional English name must be used for the article title in Wikipedia until another usage becomes prevailing. Wikipedia is a reference resource and it should not be used as a vehicle for imposing language changes on native Engish speakers. The history of the subject, as well as any issues which may cause a particular naming appear imprecise should be explained within the body of the article, but not by way of manipulating its title, I believe. - Introvert talk 08:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support evident move. --Ghirla | talk 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose according to MoS and academic norms. deeptrivia (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In fact why should arabs be acknowledged at all because they just learnt them in India. Why so much support for a lie? --DPSingh 12:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although "Arabic numerals" is the most common name, "Hindu-Arabic" is the most correct and most preferred by encyclopedic sources. In addition, numerals in Arabic don't look anything like the current preferred "Arabic numerals". joturner 23:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since most scholars seems to use the term "Hindu Arabic Numerals". BTW Anybody who uses the term "Arabic Numerals" is bound to be redirected here and hence there wont be any confusion.
  • support as per Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numerals#Illegal_move. --Irpen 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. mikka (t) 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was on the fence until I pulled down my History of Mathematics (Katz, 1998). He uses "Hindu-Arabic place-value system". The move seems to have been irregular, but the result is in line with current usage. Zora 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to Arabic numerals... but this has already happened... This is an absolute farce - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it cares about what is right, not what is common. Arabic numerals is fine in Simple English, but is not technically correct. There is not one authorititive statement that suggests Arabic numerals is correct, so why should Wikipedia accept it? Change it back. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Facts over perception. --Ambar 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arabic numerals. And a separate article on Hindu numerals. Plus cross references on both pages. Let people decide for themselves based on the evidence provided on the separate pages. Different number systems were used in wide geographical areas at the same time. Anything along the trade routes would have some commonalities and some differences. Learned men lived in all the major cities and manuscripts flowed from one to another from time to time. Only a few gave what we would consider source credits and only miniscule portions have survived to the present time. Math tended to be a rather secret and/or generally unappreciated occupation so many manuscripts have been lost. Certainly the transmission to Europe was via the Muslim universities. --NorthernJudy 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to Arabic numerals with request to move back to Hindu-Arabic. Also suggest that the redirect be reversed, thereby redirecting from Arabic numerals (incomplete terminology) to Hindu-Arabic numerals (accurate, complete, terminology). --Fire 15:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Throughout history it has been named as Arabic numerals..especially when we search in English, personally I was taught in highschool & University "this & this uses the Arabic numeral system" so it is easier & more popular for usage Iraswe

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The previous move of this general-interest article was done without attracting broader participation and without waiting a proper time for all opinions heard, thus leaving a strong impression that this was POV pushing. mikka (t) 19:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there were some "POV-pushing" type contributors, but on its own merit, the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" makes perfect sense. deeptrivia (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You were one of the POV-pushers, you're easily forgiven, but not in the case you start blaming it on others. --Francis Schonken 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the word Arabic be associated with these numerals at all? Call them Indian numerals/Hindu numerals. Arabs learnt them from India and you always cite the original inventor. Example if some upstart physicist discovers e=mc^2 it does not mean einstein's name is added to this young discoverer. I fail to understand why people are supporting Arab numerals. A wrong once discovered has to be corrected.

--DPSingh 12:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When many reputed encyclopedic sources have already recognised the previous mistake and decided to move towards Fair, Most Accurate name "Hindu-Arabic Numerals" , then why anyone will want Wikipedia to remain stick to lie and inaccuracy.--Holy Ganga 21:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The v. last link is to a great history on number development, but the last section on binary numbers gets the translation from base 10 numbers to base 2 numbers just a bit wrong. I'm no mathematician, but it's confusing for those trying to work it out.

Singular/plural

Whatever your decision, please keep in mind the tradition of wikipedia to make titles in singular rather than plural, for a number of reasons. I.e., the proper title must be "(Whatever) numeral". mikka (t) 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needen't, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns was adjusted, if I remember well, one or two months ago. --Francis Schonken 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see in how far the naming conventions would justify the use of plural here. It is not a case where it is always used in plural. Each of the symbols 0,...,9 is an Arabic numeral. Cuold you precisely cite the "adjustment" of the conventions you refer to ? — MFH:Talk 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:deeptrivia

I would also like to mention that I am finding assertions that this move was for a "nationalist" cause a bit offensive. It's really depressing for me. "Arabic numerals" is highly uncommon in academic articles about the numerals, like this one is supposed to be, throughout the world. My argument is absolutely not that "Hindus should get credit, therefore the name should be Hindu-Arabic." I was afraid from the beginning that people will consider it an issue of nationalism, therefore I thought twice before proposing the change. I am just afraid that an unacademic title like "Arabic numerals" will reflect badly on the knowledgebility of the wikipedia community. My statement that this term might be misleading is not because I think it gives undue importance to Arabs (I fully appreciate Arab role in spreading these, and can understand why people at first called them Arabic numerals, a usage that continued colloquially), but because there are other uses of "Arabic numerals." deeptrivia (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING REASONS BEFORE VOTING:

Reasons for previous move

The change in article name was done with consensus, and was based on the following reasons:

  • "Arabic numeral" is a very common colloquial term for Hindu-Arabic (so appears to fit one of the many criteria for naming on wikipedia (see below)), but it's not appropriate in the more formal context of the title of an encyclopedia article, which should be more rigorous in reflecting academic norms.
  • All other encyclopedias like Britannica [1], refer to the symbols exclusively as "Hindu-Arabic" everywhere they are mentioned. 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, who are held accountable for what they write, and are peer-reviewed at many levels) exclusively use the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals".
  • According to another article on Britannica, titled "The Hindu-Arabic system" [2], the numerals are "commonly spoken of as Arabic but preferably as Hindu-Arabic."
  • Definitely preferred by scholars, e.g., as per Peter Wardley [3]
"`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." deeptrivia (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On common names convention

This move was also in accordance to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which states that:

No it wasn't, I've inserted the reasons with indents:
Please also see my responses. deeptrivia (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is uncommon in academic articles about the numerals, like this one is supposed to be. Also, the common name guideline comes with certain clauses, and afterall it is a guideline, not a law written on stone.
Sorry about that! I copied it without going in the edit mode :) I thought "at odds with" means "in conflict with", and I didn't quite get what is meant by "not decided from beforehand" in this context. deeptrivia (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of different "Arabic numerals." This makes the title unprecise. As I said earlier, I am not comptent to talk about correctness myself, which is a task of historians. deeptrivia (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." "Arabic numerals" is listed as a misnomer from time immemorial.
    • Plato's Republic is no less a misnomer, with much graver consequences than Hindu's not getting credit for an invention, nonetheless wikipedia's article is at Republic (dialogue). No, really the "misnomer" argument has never been seen as stronger than the "common names" argument, if anything, it means that the "misnomer" is commonly accepted - wikipedia only falls back to the alternative when it's nearly as commonly accepted (at least "well-accepted"). I'm not impressed by the presented evidence that "Hindu-Arabic numerals" would be anything near to "well-accepted". --Francis Schonken 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindu-Arabic numerals" is the most accepted name in academic writing. I cited the misnomer article just as an example. My argument is absolutely not that "Hindus should get credit, therefore the name should be Hindu-Arabic." By the way, I hope you are not considering it as an issue of Hindu nationalism. I was afraid from the beginning that people will consider it an issue of nationalism. I am just afraid that an unacademic title like "Arabic numerals" will reflect badly on the knowledgebility of the wikipedia community.
  • "...we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people."
    • Neither "unreasonably misleading" (Westerners did get it from the Arabs, didn't they?); nor "offensive" (Guinea pig is a wikipedia article title: next people from the Andes or people from Guinea are going to feel "offended" that we don't use "Cavia" as an article title...) - I'm not impressed. --Francis Schonken 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might not appear misleading to you, and I can very well understand that, but it can be misleading to a lot of people. Not because it gives importance to Arabs (I fully appreciate Arab role in spreading these, and can understand why people at first called them Arabic numerals, a usage that continued colloquially), but because there are other uses of "Arabic numerals"

deeptrivia (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In short, for me all right to invoke "precision" as a defense of the longer page name. But don't make it sound as if this is the same as choosing the "common name" in this case. And as I've said: I'm not impressed by the "pro-precision" arguments nearly as much as by the "pro-common name" arguments in this case. --Francis Schonken 22:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, deeptrivia, you can sing the more academic on as many tunes as you like, this has come up in oh so many wikipedia talk before, but at the end of the road wikipedia has chosen for the more recognisable and not for the more academic as far as page titles are concerned. All the rather-academic-than-common goes in the article content and/or is used for redirects. That's wikipedia naming conventions guidelines. --Francis Schonken 23:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindu-Arabic numerals" is not all that different from "Arabic numerals", and in my opinion, recognition by people and search engines would not be that big a problem, especially because the first thing the article would say is that they are also known as Arabic numerals, and Arabic numerals is a substring of Hindu-Arabic numerals. I agree this would have been an issue if we were replacing it by an entirely different and obscure set of characters. deeptrivia (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- That Enc Brit calls "Hindu-Arabic" more correct doesn't speak about special smartness of its professors. AFAIK "Hindu" today referes to a religion in part of India. For all we know about who invented the numerals may well be a Buddhist. Yes, I am aware that previously Indians were knwon as Hindus, but still it undermines the argument that the "Hindu-Arabic" name is "correct". mikka (t) 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I don't think I am qualified to debate on whether "Hindu-Arabic" is correct. My argument is not primarily based on my viewpoint about its correctness. All I can do is point out to what mainstream academicians and historians (to whom we can best leave the correctness debate) agree upon as correct terminology. deeptrivia (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a disambiguation page at Arabic numerals. I would not participate in the voting for a third time.

You are welcome to do whatever you want. Your The both previous moves were illegal. You The moving party didn't seek consensus with broader participation. Your The move was done within 1-2 days of starting poll, which gave no time for other people to see the issue. I will not revert your move again, but your the behavior of participants was not the best. mikka (t) 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here mikka. I didn't move the article even once. All three moves were done by someone else, and I completely agree with you, that they were all premature. deeptrivia (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:mikkalai

That Enc Brit calls "Hindu-Arabic" more correct doesn't speak about special smartness of its professors. AFAIK "Hindu" today referes to a religion in part of India. For all we know about who invented the numerals may well be a Buddhist. Yes, I am aware that previously Indians were known as Hindus, but still it undermines the argument that the "Hindu-Arabic" name is "correct". mikka (t) 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I don't think I am qualified to debate on whether "Hindu-Arabic" is correct. All I can do is point out to what mainstream academicians and historians (to whom we can best leave the correctness debate) agree upon as correct terminology. deeptrivia (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to notice that I never voted on the issue at all. As to mainstream academicians, you will be surprized to learn how many times their "correct" opinions about a correction of language were disregarded. Language has its own life. mikka (t) 19:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this supposed to be an academic article, as opposed to a piece of literature? Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk)
Wikipedia has its own naming conventions, based on principles not necessarily matching these of EB. mikka (t) 20:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern for one of the guidelines, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which we certainly did take into account in our previous discussions. EB is cited as an example, not a reason in itself. We also discussed other guidelines such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guidelenes address totally different issues. You are confusing the terms "precision" and "correctness": its main idea is to use as narrow term as possible, i.e., it says not to call this article simply "Numerals". It has nothing to do with how to name the article "correctly", nor with possible disambiguation. mikka (t) 23:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of different "Arabic numerals." This makes the title unprecise. As I said earlier, I am not comptent to talk about correctness myself, which is a task of historians. deeptrivia (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis

Please read instructions on WP:RM: the page will only be moved back if there's a 60% majority for that option. This gives an advantage to those wanting to keep it where it is. The only advantage for those who'd prefer a move is that they get a *short* opening statement why the vote was initiated, immediately followed by the vote. The previous consensus is in the archive, along with the evidence of breaking off the WP:RM vote after less than 24H. It deprived me of the possibility to vote. So I started a new vote.

Re. content of the argumentation: I'm not convinced (as I said above) that this justified putting aside the common names principle. This (and much more) argumentation is in the archive. I read it, that is to say three quarters of it, the rest of the unavoidable repeats of the same argumentation I read diagonally. I know what's in the archive. And I vote what I voted. --Francis Schonken 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rama's Arrow

Hello All,

While this belief of mine may be tagged POV, political or Hindu nationalism, I strongly feel the need to elucidate it:

(1) This title must, in my belief, acknowledge the role ancient India played in the synthesis of this mathematical system.

(2) Hindu is an appropriate title as the ancient Indian sciences and studies of all natures were intrinsically tied to the study of shastras, or bodies of knowledge. They were a mixture of science, mathematics, astronomy, religion and philosophy. You can't blame them for not complying with your modern division between religion and science, a POV which is being defended here.

But Indo-Arabic is also quite acceptable, and perhaps more politically correct.

(3) If the call is made for Arabic only, it will discredit this article for not effectively acknowledging the true roots of the mathematical system. You can have all the Wikipedia conventions you like, but the main point of reference should be the birth of this system in an exchange between Indian and Arabic scholars.

However, I will respect the democratic verdict here.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • mikka, I shared your viewpoint, and I wrote to Dorling Kindersley to change Hindu- to Indo- on their entry on the topic in Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia (this was 7 years ago.) They replied that "Hindu-" was the convention and that it was not possible to change it to Indo- on academic and historical grounds, even though it has become more politically correct in the past two centuries deeptrivia (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rama's Arrow, I think you are missing the point and believe this is about discrediting the Indian contributions - it is not. Naming conventions would have this as "Arabic numerals", but then it would be stated very clearly in the opening paragraphs that the accurate scholarly term is "Hindu-Arabic numerals". The Indian contributions are not overlooked simply by having the title titled by it's common name. As stated in the naming conventions, that is a job for the content to correct, not the title. This is about naming the numerals with the most commonly used term. As I can see with Google and Google Scholar, it is overwhemlingly "Arabic numerals" Frogular 00:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wahoofive

  • It certainly is more familiar in the West in colloquial usage, although India (represents a greater part of humanity than US+Europe+Australia) among other countries use Hindu-Arabic even colloquially. Nowhere is "Arabic numerals" used in academic articles about the numerals. deeptrivia (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss below, not here. That said, this is the English Wikipedia and therefore what's more familiar in the US+Europe+Australia and other Western countries matter far more. Please take your indocentric views that are in disregard of the established norms of these cultures to, for example, the Hindi Wikipedia[4]. <<This is NOT a personal attack! user:csssclll (23:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Can't resist replying to this. Where does it say that the target audience for the English Wikipedia is only English readers in the Western world? Please keep in mind that English is taught as a second language for a lot of people throughout the world, and I would imagine many of them turn to the English Wikipedia even if there is one in their native language, because the English Wikipedia has so many more articles and is "better" edited. Peyna 23:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, let's have both. The Hindus invented it and the Arabs transmitted the system to the world.

Raj2004 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word "transmitted" does not suffice in describing the Arab role Talk:History_of_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system#Deeptrivia.2C_why_did_you_remove_this_verifiable_content.3F.21 csssclll (00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with csssclll regarding numerals (as opposed to numeral system)). The numerals that left India were quite different from ones that reached Europe, so it's not mere transmission. `deeptrivia (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not provided a convincing reason for why you removed verifiable content regarding Al-Uqlidisi's modification of the "system", as Dr J J O'Connor and Professor E F Robertson clearly call it here in their discussion of his modification[5] "Certainly the fact that the Indian system required a dust board had been one of the main obstacles to its acceptance. For example As-Suli, after praising the Indian system for its great simplicity, wrote in the first half of the tenth century:- Official scribes nevertheless avoid using [the Indian system] because it requires equipment [like a dust board] and they consider that a system that requires nothing but the members of the body is more secure and more fitting to the dignity of a leader", so that it can be used with pen and paper instead of the dust board that until then it had required, and you still have not answered my question as to why you removed such verifiable mention of Al-Uqlidisi's modification on the basis of your claim that it did not consistute a change to the numeral system yet you retained content about Fibonacci. Not only that your excuse is false, but it isn't even consistent. Your serious and persistent NPOV violations along with your careless "echoing" of the racist slurs of your "Aryan" friends that had no epistemological relevance to this page obliged me to report your user conduct, and I request that neutral editors visit and comment Talk:History_of_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system#Deeptrivia.2C_why_did_you_remove_this_verifiable_content.3F.21 Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17 csssclll Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct (02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I apologise for that. I still haven't understood how changing the way numerals are written constitutes a change in numeral system, but probably it's my fault. So please go ahead, and put it back! Cheers :) deeptrivia (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'll accept that. I have no interest in animosities. Please keep your biases in check. I'll remove request for comment on your conduct. Regards. csssclll (03:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks! And hoping to have a more positive interaction with you in future. Good day! deeptrivia (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ben Aveling

Not that Google is the be all and end all, but....

  1. "arabic numerals" -"hindu arabic numerals" about 690,000 hits
  2. "hindu arabic numerals" about 13,800 hits
  3. "Indo-Arabic numerals" 237 hits.

Unless there is something to say about hindu arabic numerals which does not also apply to arabic numerals, I'd suggest hindu arabic numerals should redirect to arabic numerals. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With so many references on this talk page to academic norms, I decided to do the same search on Google Scholar.
scholar.google.com
  1. "arabic numerals" 5890 hits
  2. "hindu arabic numerals" 5 hits
It appears that the people who use the term "hindu arabic numerals" are those who are familiar with the history of mathematics. Other academics in other related fields of math, science, psychology (symbol recognition stuff) who refer to these numerals still refer to them as "arabic numerals", accounting for the high hits for just "arabic numerals". Academics other than those expert in history of mathematics using "arabic numerals" suggests that the term "arabic numerals" is common accepted usage. -Frogular 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Partial agreement with Frogular. If you can find a decent article about the numerals that calls it "Arabic Numerals", then I'll be convinced it is acceptable (as opposed to common). deeptrivia (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention to dispute acceptable vs common, sorry if I came across that way. I completely agree that "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is the proper term of these numerals. What I am saying is that "Arabic numerals" is by a rather large factor far more common even among other fields of academics (who are not versed in the history of mathematics) and constitutes a strong "common usage" argument, in reference to the debate on common name vs precision. Other than debating whether common name or precision is more appropriate in this situation, the other arguments I've read have been quite embarrassingly POV based. Frogular 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This was a tough one. I usually don't offer insight on my decision making, but due to the nature of this debate I'll elaborate a bit rather then just using the notmoved template.

First off, when doing this I'm going from the original state - that is assuming the article we are moving from is Arabic numerals. So in order to "stay" at Hindu-Arabic numerals there would need to be a consensus, rather then the other way around.

Rough "vote counting" if you will offers about 60% in favor of the hindu version, which fits the absolute minimum of 60% given for WP:RM. However, filtering out for users with less than 100 edits you get about 56% in support, which doesn't meet the minimum for WP:RM. Due to the close result, disputes over breaking of naming conventions, and size of the debate, there is more than enough reasons to warrant it staying at the old version.

I encourage people to discuss this on the relevant naming guidelines and wikiproject pages before requesting another move :). There you may find people of like mind who can help you sort it out a bit.

WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't mention whether I agree with a WP:RM vote count report, however, this time someone requested at my talk page whether I'd have a look at this. So, for clarity: I always agree with the sysop's judgement closing the vote.
Specifically for this vote, I want to add that the sysop did IMHO a fine job in analysing a very difficult ballot, seen the high amount of disturbance, possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, and the like: I think the vote count report and result analysis very equilibrated. --Francis Schonken 08:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Until WhiteNight's statement here, this was portrayed as a RM from here to Arabic numerals. WhiteNight then moved with only 38% of the vote. Under either conception of which direction this is going, a 62% vote for 'Hindu-Arabic numeral' qualifies for Hindu-Arabic, not Arabic. WhiteNight gets around that by disqualifying anyone who hasn't edited Wikipedia for a minimum decided, apparently, by WhiteNight him/her self. There is nothing at WP:RM about disqualifying editors based on experience. (Or was this an attempt to ferret out sockpuppets?) It seems to me that WhiteNight's move was questionable.
I'm not planning on reverting the move, though, at least not unless other admins feel it was unwarranted. Perhaps we should archive this whole discussion and *sigh* start again? And if we're going to disqualify people based on experience, we should state so up front: "You must have X edits as of yesterday's date in order for your vote to count" or some such. kwami 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

Just a note that some of you seem to find it acceptable to split up other user's comments to interject your snappy one-liners. Please reply below other user's comments rather than breaking their comments up to get in all your quick responses. Not only does it make the talk page confusing and somewhat belittle the other person, but it comes off as an attempt to give your argument more weight than it might deserve. Peyna 23:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It also creates a mess in case of an edit conflict. deeptrivia (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, don't, and stop complaining sanctimoniously. And even then, refactoring is worse. Adding new comments on top of your old comments is still worse. That's now become n° 21 on my list of things you can do to deteriorate the quality of a voting procedure. --Francis Schonken 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry! Regarding inserting comments in the middle, I thought I'll follow what you're doing for your maximum convenience. Let's be more tolerant about these minor things and focus on the issue. deeptrivia (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you add new comments on top of your old comments (which is your invention, really I hadn't seen this disruptive-yet-not-illegal type of refactoring before), then you invite others to post their answers where the new comment is. --Francis Schonken 08:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Schonken, stop snapping at Deeptrivia and others. You've had a nasty tone of voice through this process which is unacceptable, especially if you're the guy people look to to conduct this process properly.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 14:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic numerals

This site is a prime example of what Arabic numerals, not Hindu-Arabic numerals. Arabic numbers are different to the numbers modern Western civilisation, therefore how can we say they are the same. Template:DaGizza/Sg 10:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the webpage but the info at the website is at least not accurate. It says that The first set of number names are Modern Standard Arabic. The others are Moroccan Arabic. All Maghreb (north african nations) use 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. See picture of Libyan dinar. I also saw somewhere in this talk page or in its archive an image of an egyptian phone pad having both numerals and the comment was something like these are the the Arabic numerals in contrast with European ones. The question is how come contemporary Arabs use two different numerals? Cheers -- Svest 21:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
Svest, in response to your Libyan Dinar example (above), on the right is an illustration of currency note for INR 1000 (Indian Rupees). I'm afraid, neither of the examples add value to argument in question. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
interesting --Astriolok 23:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your misunderstanding! All I am saying is that in North Africa, Arabs use that. That was in response to some users who do not know about it and I also thought it was interesting. I also asked a question but no one was feeling happy to answer it. Was I wrong?!!! Cheers -- Svest 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

When is this vote ending?

When is this vote ending? What is the exact date and time? Rama's Arrow 16:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow that at WP:RM (vote started December 18, 2005). Please also read the intro of that page, how long a WP:RM vote usually takes is indicated there. --Francis Schonken 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A vote of this kind has no ultimatum. Only an administrator can do that based on the their jurisprudence. That's another story. Cheers -- Svest 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
In fact, this is not a vote. It looks like one, it has a lot in common with one, but it isn't a vote. It's an attempt to achieve a consensus decision, or failing that, to measure community feeling. (Which is why the opinions of newcomers and outsiders don't always get considered at full value - sometimes they clearly aren't representitive of the wider wikipedian community.) The raw numbers are a major part, even the major part of it, but it's not a vote.
At the moment, we seem to be repeating ourselves without making progress. To summarise, a significant minority believe that it is important to include the origin in the title, while a narrow majority believe that common usage is more important.
I'm not really sure how we can proceed. The reason for using the common name is that to do so complies with wikipedia standards. That's why Asprin is discssed at Asprin, the common name, rather than at 2-(acetyloxy)benzoic acid, its 'proper' name. Consider also the America's Cup. It originated in England, but the common name is America's Cup, so that's what we use. Exceptions can always be made, but we would need a good reason to do so. Given that 'accuracy' is usually overridden by 'common usage', can someone please list the reasons for this page to be different?
Regards, Ben Aveling 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned this is a WP:RM, just like any other. Whether you call it "vote" or "poll" or something else doesn't matter to me. But as procedure it is WP:RM. Which includes: following an advised page lay-out for this talk page (pretty much OK now), ferreting out sockpuppet votes (still has to happen), and the like (see instructions on the WP:RM page).
Re. "I'm not really sure how we can proceed." - follow WP:RM to start with. There has been disturbance (edit warring on article page during vote; sockpuppeteering; etc...). Extending the period that people can express their opinion about the page name in "support"/"oppose" format is one option. Normally this would happen automatically (compare WP:RM proceedings at talk:East Timor: never really "halted" after several months - despite the notice on top of that page -, but instead of people starting WP:RM's every few months, they just add their vote - and maybe some day there will be enough support for "Timor Leste", and the page moved - note that I don't think this an "ideal" situation, but maybe the "least bad of several evils").
Another suggestion for people not knowing how wikipedia deals with such difficult cases (be assured there have been many, many before): some experience on how to deal with this, described in general terms, is contained in wikipedia:naming conflict. Maybe it would be a good idea to advise voters to have a look at that before voting. Not that such page has anything near to an "instant solution" for such problems, but always good to learn from experience of others, isn't it? --Francis Schonken 07:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal move

While I take no position on the issue itself, I strongly condemned those who moved the article without seeking consensus first, while discussion was ongoing simply to impose their POV on the community because the movers were unconvinced that their POV would prevail in the discussion. As per Mikka:

The both previous moves were illegal. The moving party didn't seek consensus with broader participation. The move was done within 1-2 days of starting poll, which gave no time for other people to see the issue. --mikka (t)

Based purely on this, I think the move should be reverted because it looks like a bad-faith move. Once reverted, the histories and talks should be merged and ordered (only admin can do it) and discussion should be allowed to continue. Once consensus emerges, the page should me moved or remain where it war. Such moves go everything against the Wikipedia spirit. --Irpen 02:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being the inital "illegal mover", I'd like to point out that I have no preference in any "POV" that the title may or may not be expressing. I could care less what the numerals are referred to as, but simply moved the article from Arabic numerals to Hindu-Arabic numerals because at that time it seemed like that was the general feeling among those involved in the discussion. Remember to assume good faith, and maybe everyone getting bogged down in this unnecessarily bureaucratic mess a simple article name change has created would be better served by ignoring all of the rules and finding something better to do. I made the original move because the name Hindu-Arabic, while maybe less common in usage, seemed to be more accurate and more academic, and had the support of a number of people involved in the discussion. I have no concerns for any "POV" that might exist here (and I'm not sure how either name is pushing any POV). There is no need to pull in every person on Wikipedia to get their opinion on the matter, but apparently that is what is going to happen now. It's not a life-ending change. We're not removing content. No matter which name is chosen, the other will redirect. I think you all need to take a deep breath and realize that in the end it doesn't matter what the title is so long as it is clear to the reader what is being referred to. If all of this energy being spent arguing about the stupid title were put into the article content we'd have a featured article by now; or at the very least, Astriolok and ccssscclll or whatever might have ended their stupid revert war, which is much more damaging than either choice of title. Those of you claiming any of this is POV motivated need to review WP:NPOV. Neither title would be seen as Wikipedia endorsing any particular point of view. Peyna 03:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am amazed

The world is bigger then "west" especially with the internet. One side of the argument stems from oh this is a western wikipedia so we write what is logical from that angle. This is a head in the sand approach.

When it is fact that Arabs did not invent these numerals what is the point in pushing the name Arab with these numerals?

Mention Indian numerals/Hindu numerals and in description mention that west learnt them through Arabs. Nothing more nothing less.

To call this hindu pov or whatever else is a farce as facts remain facts regardless of them being called POV as is the case with these numerals.

--DPSingh 12:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New intro and page lay-out proposal

Since the outline of the arabic numerals page content hasn't settled yet, I propose this version for the intro and the page layout:

Template:Otheruses2

What in the Western world is best known as Arabic numerals - or with respect to its history also Hindu-Arabic or Indo-Arabic numerals - has two main aspects:

  1. A base ten numeral system with unclear origin, as it hasn't been established univocally who was the first to use a symbol for zero as a number in a base ten positional system, so that numerals could be composed with it, neither has it been established univocally who learnt what from whom in setting up the base ten numeral system in the form it was known since the Renaissance. The present best guess regarding the origin of the base ten numeral system: somewhere in or around the first millennium AD, somewhere between Europe and India, but, for example, as late as the end of the 16th century Simon Stevin was (re-)inventing the notation of decimal fractions (see Simon Stevin#Decimal fractions), that is some four centuries after the numerals had become widely spread in Europe, thanks to, among others, Fibonacci's Liber Abaci.
  2. A set of symbols for the graphic representation of the digits:
    • Western notation: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - going back to the ancient Hindu representation, see Brahmi numerals;
    • Arabic notation: ٠ - ١ - ٢ - ٣ - ٤ - ٥ - ٦ - ٧ - ٨ - ٩ (read right to left)
    • etc...

Hindu-Arabic numerals may also be referred to as Hindu numerals, Indian numerals, Western numerals, European numerals,... - such names usually also imply a graphic representation format for the symbols.

In the Western world the term Arabic became associated with these numerals as a result of Europeans learning about them via, among others, Arabs.

History

Further information: History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system

...

Base ten numeral system

Further information: Hindu-Arabic numeral system

...

Symbol sets

...

Further, I think the page History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system should be renamed to History of Hindu-Arabic numerals, and extended a bit with more details on the history of the graphic format of the numbers.

--Francis Schonken 08:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Disagree - Sorry but the composition of your text is convoluted and confusing. --Astriolok 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify? And/or give an alternate version? What is "convoluted" about my proposal? What is "confusing" about it? --Francis Schonken 09:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its confusing and the current version does the job of explaining clearly and simply the topic, there is no need to change the basic layout.--Astriolok 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I don't see even a begin of an answer to:
  • Why it would be confusing?
  • Why it would be convoluted?
As to "change basic lay-out": I have no idea which of the two edit-warring basic lay-outs you mean. I made a consensus proposal to stop that edit-warring. Gratuitous "agree"/"disagree" statements don't make me see what my new proposal is worth, so I propose you try to give me (and your other fellow wikipedians) some insight regarding how you think about it. --Francis Schonken 17:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

Although I opposed the move to Arabic numerals, if it is going to be called that, the term Hindu-Arabic has to be changed everywhere. The numeral systems template and History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system page will have to be changed. Wikipedia should use only use one of these terms to avoid confusion (preferably Hindu-Arabic).Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem you are mentioning - when "Arabic numerals" and "Hindu-Arabic numerals" are synonyms, either term can be used: consistency is per page in such cases. --Francis Schonken 09:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency across related pages is to be preferred. The synonym issue can be explained on each page, but one form should be used consistently in titles and text. Otherwise readers may be confused into thinking that Arabic and Hindu-Arabic numerals are different things. Rd232 talk 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward (naming)

This is a bloody mess due to the way the vote was handled. The vote being for a move to Arabic numerals and the page being moved in the middle of the vote was not good practice. The best way forward is probably to concisely state the evidence for each naming option, and then treat this as a new requested move. Allow a discussion period to solidify and make very clear what the issue is and then have a consensus building period (unfortunately looks like voting) that a wider number of wikipedians can be involved in. This should probably be done in Talk:Arabic numerals/naming because it doesn't have much to do with improving the article content. I'll set the page up in a bit. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the page is set up but it may need some tweaking and some additional options. For example should we have a separate article on the Arabic symbols that are shown on the keypad image like there is for Indian numerals. Also while we are at it and can set up a well organized vote, should we have this discussion decide how the numerals are referred to in other articles as well. Any other issues that are related and need to be decided should be considered at this time as well. - Taxman Talk 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to screw up the first sentence of the article with all these different names. Everyone knows what Arabic numerals are, and when they actually read the article they will learn about their origins too. Britannica would never make such a mess like this.

"What are known in English as "Arabic numerals" were neither invented nor widely used by the Arabs."

The tone of this is frankly accusatory and shouldn't stay in this article any longer. The reader is hoping to be informed, not to be lectured on the shortsighted, Eurocentric origins of his language. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ashibaka tock 22:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Why was the page moved during the voting phase? From what have I observed above:

  1. More people have voted for the Hindu-Arabic title
  2. 60% is an arbitary number and I don't think 56% was too far from that number. Was it hastily moved to prevent an impending vote to keep the title?
  3. Those who vote for the title "Arabic numerals" seem to be residents of Western-countries. The question remains (and I seek an answer), is this because the education system in those countries have not updated their syllabus, and have largely been indifferent to the origins of the numbers? Do school books in those countries mention the source of the numbers?
  4. Brittanica uses HA numerals, and other references have been provided. Have these been taken into account?
  5. Should we go by what is common usage as per Western standards? We had a BIG debate on Calcutta vs Kolkatta on this same issue last year.
  6. As I have noted above: The word Hindu does not imply religion. It has also been used in economics.
  7. Arab numerals will be confused with Arabic numerals. Do we want to spread this confusion?
  8. Wikipedia should aim to disseminate correct and accurate information. Sure, Calcutta is more commonly used today in most of the world, but is it accurate? Strive for accuracy, that is the only way wikipedia will move forward.
  9. Those who cite: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) please note the following on that page: In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative (tsunami, for example).

I would prefer the revert be undone to maintain status quo and nullify and restarting the voting. Should I effect the change? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should, the page was unjustifiably moved. DaGizza Chat 06:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 3, since you raised it, those favouring Arabic seem to be mostly native english speakers, apparently from a range of countries. Those favouring Hindu-Arabic seem to be, well, Hindus. We don't have an article called American lightbulb or Greek Democracy even though it might show more accuratly where those things were invented, perhaps. The Hindus might have invented the numbers (except perhaps 0?) but the Arabs spread them to the west, and for whatever reason, the popular name does not happen to reflect the original origin of them. It happens. The Indian Rope Trick wasn't invented in India, but that's what the trick's called, so that's the name of the page about it. It isn't misleading or wrong to call the numbers Arabic - that's what they're called by those who use them, much the same as Kolkata is used by those who live there. I can't help but feel that for many people here the question is not accuracy but national pride? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my posts carefully. As i've stated above, there is nothing religious about the word Hindu in this context. It has absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism. It See Hindu rate of growth ([6]). I also disagree with your assesment that most of the people who opposed it are Hindus and are supporting it based on religious reasons.
that's what they're called by those who use them. Is the term Hindu-Arabic not used by Ency. Brittannica? So who really are the people who use the sole term Arabic that it falls under "common usage"? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to understand the significance of your analogy of the American lightbulb and Greek democracy. These phrases never existed and also are also not ambigious. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
evidently, the discussion has been marred by religious or ethnic sentiment (or, equivalently, allegation of such). Common usage is the only point that should be under discussion; however, judging from google, "Hindu-Arabic numerals", probably coined for PC reasons originally, seems to have gained enough currency to be considered common. I would therefore argue that a move there doesn't hurt, and if it makes part of our editors happy, why not move it there? Otoh, judging from Hindu-Arabic numeral system, the term can be used to refer to the whole set of related numerals, including Devanagari, Bangla, Tamil ones etc.; looking for a term to refer to the symbols used in the Latin alphabet since the 15th century, "Arabic numerals" may still be handy. dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the Hindu-Arabic numeral system article, and put numerals in various scripts there with the intention to emphasize that a numeral system is not merely a set of symbols, but "a framework where a set of numbers are represented by numerals in a consistent manner." A just wanted to include all such sets of symbols that are used to work with the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. The article is not intended to discuss any symbols at all, which are covered, e.g., in Thai numerals, Indian numerals, and Hindu-Arabic numerals. The numerals 0,1,2,... are still unambiguously "Hindu-Arabic numerals." deeptrivia (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, how about this article (Arabic numerals) being entirely about the glyphs/symbols, along the lines of Thai numerals, and Hindu-Arabic numerals redirecting to Hindu-Arabic numeral system to discuss the history and the numeral system. After all, the "Thai numerals" are not any more "Thai" than the "Arabic numerals" are Arabic or European: We don't have "Hindu-Thai numerals" to discuss the glyphs used in Thailand, so why should we insist on the Hindu- prefix for those used in the West? Let us just make one central article discussing evolution and spread of the numerals (symbols and system), and the "regional" articles will cover regional history (in the case of "Arabic numerals", aka "Western numerals", the period AD 1200-2000. dab (ᛏ) 16:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge?

the split between Hindu-Arabic numerals and Hindu-Arabic numeral system is difficult to justify. Is the former supposed to discuss the glyphs only, and the latter the decimal positional system only? Why then, does the latter list all sort of variant glyphs, while the former has a "History" section discussing use of zero? Neither article is excessively long, and I suggest they should join forces. Also, note History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system which claims the earliest evidence of zero in India is from 870, while this article has only the 628 claim, more cautiously ascribed to "Hindu literature" in History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. If we merge the articles, the title should definitely be "Hindu-Arabic numerals", since it will discuss European and Arabic as well as Indian variants of the glyphs. Or else the article should be about the "Latin" glyphs 01234567890 exclusively, leaving all historical discussion preceding adoption of the system in Europe to a longer Hindu-Arabic numerals. Bottom line, I argue this is not a case for a simple case of voting about a move, but a more involved question of how to intelligently distribute material between articles. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there can also be a section or article European adoption of Arabic numerals, which can discuss the process from 1200 until 2000, how use of Roman numerals lingered on for numbers deemed "important", and finally just for years and clockfaces, an interesting topic in itself. dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, would be interesting! The story about numeral/numeral system schism is this: initially, the article was meant to discuss the numeral system. In all other numeral systems (eg Roman), there is a unique symbol set. This allows for using "Roman numerals" and "Roman numeral system" interchangably. Due to very wide variations in the symbols used for the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, this is not possible with this article. This led to articles, which figured on the "Numeral systems" template as "Indian", "Thai" etc. Clearly there's no "Indian numeral system" or "Thai numeral system" separate from the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. One possibility was to merge all these into one article which would be about the numeral system, and would talk a bit about all the symbols. But there was a demand (it makes sense too), that this article talk only about the symbols "0".."9". This led to the split. After that, a few editors couldn't resist adding stuff that should belong to the numeral system article (positional system, zero, etc) here as well, resulting in the current mess. deeptrivia (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
let's clean up the mess, then. This is not a discussion about a move; it is a discussion about scope. Let us have exclusively Western numerals and their history at "Arabic numerals", and the article on the system at "Hindu-Arabic numerals". dab (ᛏ) 17:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can talk only about the symbols "0".."9" on this article, and about the numeral system on the Hindu-Arabic numeral system article. Looking at the content of all these related articles, at present, we don't have much information about the history of the numerals after, say, the 13th century. It would be great if you could come up with some information (on how the numerals adopted in Europe). deeptrivia (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The "numerals" (symbols) are also formally referred to as "Hindu-Arabic numerals." deeptrivia (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: "numerals" would be confused with "glyphs" (since that's what it means), so I think it is a good idea to name the article on the numeral system as Hindu-Arabic numeral system. deeptrivia (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ok, I've been bold, now look what I've done: I hope this will be uncontroversial: The main article is Hindu-Arabic numerals, treating evolution, including the blurb on "milestone of mathematics" which I assume is the point of national pride here. The detailed history is a sub-article of this, History of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, as before. "Arabic numerals", with a redirect from Western numerals is about the European variant only, with a short "Origins" section linking to the History article, but concentrating on the History of the adoption in Europe. dab (ᛏ) 17:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the my two observations above. Thanks :) deeptrivia (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, it is difficult, and unnecessary, to discuss the symbols separately from the system. We can have the article at Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but I strongly recommend that Hindu-Arabic numerals redirects there, not to the article about the Western variant, precisely to avoid the confusion experienced earlier. "numeral" may refer both to the symbol (which is dependent on the system), and to the word for individual numbers in a given language (see Etruscan numerals, which doesn't really fit in the "numerals" series). For purposes of the system, they are really all just the same, and have been since the ninth century. The Arabic/Western/Indian variants are just so many typographical / notational variants of the same symbols. Therefore, the system (positional notation and all that) should be discussed once, in a central article, and not on the article treating the Western variant. Adoption of the numerals in the West is complicated enough to fill this article. dab (ᛏ) 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with that (split b/w glyphs and nuumeral system)! But "Hindu-Arabic numerals" is the Western variant, not any of the other symbol sets that use the same numeral system. An answer to why we shouldn't have "Hindu-Arabic numerals" in a way we don't have "Hindu-Thai numerals." First, to me the aim of this whole exercise is solely to make wikipedia reflect mainstream academic consensus. The reason, IMO, why things are the way they are is that the Hindu-Arabic numerals are known to have a direct common ancestor with the Nagari numerals (०, १, २, ३, ४, ५, ६, ७, ८, ९), so the symbols themselves evolved from Indian numerals (this evolution of symbols is well documented), while the Thai numerals (๐,๑,๒,๓,๔,๕,๖,๗,๘,๙) are quite different. deeptrivia (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, ok, so how do we refer to the system in general then? How about having the main article at Hindu-Arabic numeral system, and making Hindu-Arabic numerals a dab page, giving the options Arabic numerals (for the Western symbol variants) and Hindu-Arabic numeral system (for the system itself and its history)? dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the name Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Hindu-Arabic numerals refers solely to "Arabic numerals", and not any of the other variants of the original Brahmi numerals. It's a one-to-one correspondance :) deeptrivia (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved back to the Hindu-version

OK, after discussion with other admins the page has been moved back. Sorry for the inconvience. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is actually getting resolved - yay and happy new year :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction is incorrect. The numerals were not called "Arabic" by Europeans to contrast them against Greek and Roman numerals, but because the Arabs were the people that transmitted them. As it currently reads, it seems like the Europeans just picked a name out of a hat to make it different from what they already had. Peyna 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arabic numerals is the term usually applied to the "Western" variant of the Hindu-Arabic numerals, " is also incorrect, since there are no "variants" of the Hindu-Arabic numerals. The term refers unambiguously to the standard symbols we use. deeptrivia (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look, the symbols are equivalent to those grouped under Indian numerals, and in this sense, variants. Unicode considers them different glyphs. What is the term to refer to the ensemble of Indian numerals and Arabic numerals (geographic terms referring to variants of the same symbols, and the same system), then? Also, the numerals were called "Arabic" numerals in Europe to distinguish them from the Roman numerals. Obviously they were called "Arabic" and not "Australian" or "Martian" because they were adopted from the Arabs, but the statement that the qualifier was necessary to distinguish them from "what they already had" is still true. dab (ᛏ) 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are formally referred as "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and colloquially as "Arabic numerals" are the exact same numerals. None of the Indian numerals are called Hindu-Arabic or even Hindu, but are referred to by the name of the script they are used with (e.g. Gurmukhi numerals.) I don't know if there is any technical name for the ensemble, but you might like to call them "Numerals evolving from the Brahmi script" if you will. deeptrivia (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" as a term for the system was yours. If you find a better term, we can redirect "Hindu-Arabic numerals" to the Western variant, but as long as we have "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" for the entire "Indian-Persian-Arabian-European continuum", I suppose Hindu-Arabic numerals will have to be a dab page. If the Indian variants can be grouped as Indian numerals, and the Arabian ones, per Arabic numerals (disambiguation) can be called either "Arabic" or "Arabic-Indic", it seems only logical to refer to their sum as "Hindu-Arabic" or "Arabic-Indic". The Western variant just happens to be commonly called "Arabic", but "Hindu-Arabic" is fine too; I have yet to be convinced that "Hindu-Arabic" is used for the Western numerals to the exclusion of Eastern variants. At the very least, it would be highly misleading if a contrast was intended between the terms "Hindu-Arabic" on one hand and "Arabic-Indic" on the other.
My entire point is this: The very reason the numerals were called arqam hindiyyah in Arabic, and numeri Indorum and later "Arabic numerals" in the West is that they were considered identical; it is only in the 20th/21st century as we are trying to typeset various alphabets that we consider them different "glyphs" (in Unicode etc.), depending on their style as used in conjunction with the different alphabets. Of course, this means that we can have independent articles about the "national variants" now, but historically they (both the system and the symbols) are a single entity. Therefore, it is clear that there should be a single article about the system itself, with various sub-articles such as this one, treating regional adoption and variation.
I maintain that "Brahmi numerals" or similar is not so good, since the system (including positional zero) was only complete in AD 500, or even AD 800, long after the original Brahmi numerals. dab (ᛏ) 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. The system did not evolve from the Brahmi numerals, but the glyphs did (excluding zero which wasn't even there in the Brahmi numerals) (eg see [7], from The genealogy of modern numerals (Menninger, Zohlwort and Ziffer). I also agree that numeral system is the same everywhere, and there should be a single article about it. (Hindu-Arabic numerals (system)?), and there should be subarticles about various glyphs. I am 100% sure that the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals" excludes Eastern variants (like Arabic-Indic, Devanagari, etc) and is reserved for the "Western" variant (e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11], [12],[13], etc.. ). Of course, the term "Hindu-Arabic numeral system" does not refer to the "Indian-Persian-Arabian-European" family of glyphs, but to the abstract concepts involved in manipulation of numbers (like place-value, base-10 system, zero digit, etc.) I don't think there is a formal name for this glyph family that academcians use. These variants are usually considered to be a part of the related alphabets (e.g., see articles Arabic alphabet, Gujarati script, etc.) "Hindu-Arabic" and "Arabic-Indic" numerals are similar, but not similar enough to be considered variations in typesetting/font. (The difference is similar to difference between the Devanagari script and the Gurmukhi script (or the Roman alphabet and the Cyrillic alphabet), comparable but not mutually intelligible without some learning.) deeptrivia (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, then, I guess, for having Hindu-Arabic numerals (system) and Hindu-Arabic numerals (glyphs)? deeptrivia (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so in light of the above discussion, votes and approval of admins involved, I'll make the above proposed change. Thanks and cheers. deeptrivia (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to artificially prolong this debate, but I see no reason to have he article at Hindu-Arabic numerals (system) when it can be at bracket-less Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Just a minor point, of course. The "(glyphs)" addition makes much more sense at this article, where we want to stress that it is about the glyphs, and their adoption in Europe. dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fix the fork

I know I voted for Arabic numerals on the grounds of common sense, but I now suggest that this page be merged into Hindu Arabic numerals. For whatever reason, it seems that there is a strong body of opinion that a page trumpeting the historical Hindu connection must exist, even at the cost of having two pages about the same thing. I know the normal wikipedia guidelines say to go with common usage. But at the end of the day, they're just guidelines. For me, having a long winded title that isn't what the vast majority of the population actually uses is preferable to having two pages about what is (as far as I can tell) the same thing. It might confuse people a bit, but not as much as having two versions of the same page. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The two articles are about different things (glyphs vs. numeral system). The name change was proposed in accordance to, and not in spite of the common names guideline. deeptrivia (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cents Worth

I would not find two separate pages confusing. Indeed that would be much clearer since there is so much disputed territory. See my comment under the vote area for details. There is no reason why Wikipedia needs to adopt the prejudices and/or the resolutions of disagreements of the commercial encyclopedias who try to satisfy a commercial market. Online sources have room for both. And in cases where a firm determination of details cannot be made it is the way to go. The sources that mention a 9 character numerical system in India do not say there were no similar systems elsewhere. The Muslims were collecting all information at the time. It worked well for them back then. May the concept of collecting all information now work well for us too. I don't think hyphenations are useful... look at what a mess they have created for the census bureau in listing differences or origin among populations.

Your comment on the vote indicates that you think there is some ambiguity regarding the origins of the numerals and/or the numeral system. There isn't any such ambiguity, and most mainstream historians have a consensus on both the history and terminology. It is important to reflect it on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu numbers could well have had ancestral roots via Phoenicians, Sumerians or other cultures of the area. The trade routes have many numerical styles even today and idea flow is still multidirectional. Maths, being sacred, were typically kept secret requiring initiation/education so it is rare to find evidence one way or the other.
It seems there are no wikipages on Phoenician or Sumerian maths yet. No accident that Pythagoras was a Phoenician, son of Mnesarchus of Tyre.. His mathematikoi were very secretive and at the highest level. The wiki article on Pythagoras could use the infusion of someone more versed in math history.
Sumerians had a place concept as early as the 4th millenium according to Sarton who also discusses the "secreta secretorum". I might quote Sarton - it seems appropriate here: "Dogmatic teaching, even at its best, tends to create an impression of finality which is more satisfying than stimulating."
He also says: "Enthusiastic admirers...often make the mistake of giving credit for the endless consequences of ... discoveries..."
To hyphenate is to obfuscate giving neither term its proper precision nor attention. Separate pages gives what is known in each case which I think would be clearer to most people, including me. Or we could say Phoenician-Egyptian-Sumero-Huama-Sabean-Hindu-Arabic -Numerals. :)
--NorthernJudy 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The aim of such a discussion on wikipedia is to arrive at a term which conforms to wikipedia policies and the most acceptable academic standards (preferred by most mainstream academicians), and we tend to keep our own points of view on whether or not we think the term is justifiable or not out of the discussion. This is purely a question of using nomenclature that is more appropiate in the formal context of an encyclopedia, and has nothing to do with which civilization contributed how much to mathematics. This is not an exercise in distributing credits to different civilizations. There is good reason why "Phoenician-Egyptian-Sumero-Huama-Sabean-" is not included in the name by any historian of mathematics even though they had a positional system (nomenclature is based on established direct descendence, which is unambiguous), but this discussion is not about discussing whether modern historians are smart enough or not. For our purposes, it is enough to know that historians (and academicians in general), who know all that we do about these numerals and much more, prefer the term Hindu-Arabic numerals. Also, please note that this article is about the glyphs and does not concern with the positional system. deeptrivia (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to call them Hindu mumerals - do so. But most people will not find the info they are seeking if you do so without cross referencing to and from Arabic numerals. Hyphenation to denote successive origins is poor policy. That is, hyphenation paints one into a semantic corner. Arabic numerals is a valid stable term. So is Hindu numerals. But Hindu-Arabic numerals is not, no matter what the current fashion or political preference is.
For example... ponder the political storm when Teresa Kerry called herself an "African-American". She was not incorrect but she also was not correct because the hyphenated term is inherently ambiguous. Obama is somewhat in the same situation... he is, and is not, an "African-American".
Modern literary and scientific policies typically avoid hyphenation. Particularly this is true for handicap accessibility. There is also this rule of modern English usage "Compound modifiers formed of capitalized words should not be hyphenated..." [[14]]. --NorthernJudy 15:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We, at Wikipedia don't get to make names up (WP:OR). We just follow what academicians and historians use (who bang their heads for an eternity to get PhDs on history of mathematics ^_^). It's their choice, and at least I am not competent enough to critically comment on it. They would have taken everything into account. And it's not a political issue anywhere in the world (unlike the African-American bit), it's purely academic :) deeptrivia (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed. I thought Wikipedia was more leader than follower. More modern than antiquated. :) --NorthernJudy 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hindu-Arabic numerals is the modern term. The school textbooks in many countries have changed from Arabic numerals to this term, while some haven't yet (I have learned that USA is one of those who haven't yet updated., see for example comments: [15], [16]) At wikipedia, our aim is to report facts the way they are, and so we have to base everything on references from elsewhere. In this sense, you can call it a "follower." This is important to prevent it from turning into a chaotic place. Of course, in many other ways, it's the leader! I hope this helps. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenation of capitalized modifiers is not modern usage. School textbooks are often more political than academic. If you are writing for children perhaps that is appropriate but the treatment of "Intelligent Design" makes children's texts a dubious source. As for mathematicians-- back when the Brittanica was written for adults and math articles were written by expert mathematicians the article on "Numbers" gives quite a good article of both Arabic and Indian numbers in their context and also Syriac, Phoenician, Palmyrene, Hieratic, Eastern Arabic, Devanagari, Cave Indian, Ghobar, etc. Arthur Cayley's article still is quite good in the light of modern research. Georges Ifrah uses the terms "Arabic Numerals" and "Hindi Numerals" in the modern The Universal History of Numbers : From Prehistory to the Invention of the Computer, Wiley Publishers, 1999. Wiley is a reputable publisher in the areas of maths and sciences...their editors would surely be "up-to-date" on usages. [17] --NorthernJudy 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
  • (Un)fortunately, most academicians in various fields including history and science do not bother to scan through the rulebooks of modern English usage before they coin their terms. Perhaps they don't think these rules are as important as you and I do. Once they've coined it, we can do little about it. We simply have to use it. There's absolutely no dearth of terms involving hyphenation of capitalized modifiers (eg, Indo-Aryans, Proto-Indo-European language) and you'll keep hitting them everywhere.
  • Ifrah is not using "Arabic Numerals" as far as I can see from the link you gave. He is using "Indo-Arabic numerals." (note the hyphenation of capitalized modifiers.)
  • School textbooks are not "sources" here. I talked about school textbooks to put across the point that many of us who were in primary school a decade or two ago (or even now in several countries) would understandably be used-to using "Arabic numerals", since what is learnt at that age is hard to unlearn (explaining why so many editors would still oppose the change), but this has been changing lately, atleast in countries that have bothered to find some time out of "Intelligent Design" debates and updated their textbooks in other ways. Again, there's no politics associated with this naming.
  • Check the modern version of Britannica. At least the online version doesn't use the term "Arabic Numerals" at all. It always uses "Hindu-Arabic Numerals".


Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Check Ifrah's indexing and his book. :) What he calls Indo-Arabic is not what is called here to be Hindu-Arabic. His indexing as done by Wiley for the English translation uses "Arabic numerals" and "Hindi numerals": no hyphens. One can find "Indo-Aramaic" but again, the meaning differs from that used here.
Ifrah also has a section that Indian numerals originaly came from China along the trade routes and presents some evidence along those lines. Sino-Hindi-Arabic numerals?? The perils of hyphenation. In any case, hyphenation of capitalized modifiers is not current useage.[18] The American heritage usage is copyrighted 1996.
From the folks at the Chicago style manual:
"Q. In a previous Q&A, a curious reader asked you to weigh in on the subject of hyphenated Americans. You responded that “CMS prefers not to hyphenate Americans of any sort, even when they appear in an adjective phrase.” Were it actually an adjectival phrase, like “apathetic Americans,” I would be inclined to agree; however, I maintain that the examples “African-American,” “Asian-American,” and even “Native-American” (or as I prefer, American-Indian) are all compound proper nouns and must be hyphenated. They are not merely Americans who happen to be African, but rather African-Americans—a distinct ethnic and cultural group. Irrefutable logic?"
"A. I don’t see any logic in requiring the hyphenation of compound proper nouns when they are used as adjectives. In fact, because they are capitalized, there is no need for additional bells and whistles to signal that they belong together..."
Are Hindu-Arabs a distinct ehtnic or cultural group???? Is that what you are really saying? :) --NorthernJudy 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your good intentions of spreading Chicago style manual (et al) rules over all the global academic community, but apparently, they have been ignoring these rules, and we are unauthorised to reject a term simply because of that. Wikipedia merely reflects the terminology that is most widely accepted to be appropriate (of course, you will always find a few exceptions). It is beyond its scope to debate this acceptance on technical grounds. That would be the scope of a research paper. So you can get one published in an academic journal, explaining all your arguments on why the term should not be used, and hopefully they will start making the change. If a few decades down the line a majority of them starts using a term that doesn't include a hyphenation (referring to the Q&A above, is "Hindu Arabic numerals" what they suggest is appropriate?), we will surely make that change on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. The new conservatism. You neglected the fact that the Chicago Style manual was not the only English usage manual I quoted. --NorthernJudy 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's why I added "et al." But that's not the point :) deeptrivia (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Arab numerals

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)[reply]


Urdu numerals

The numerals are wrong for Urdu. Urdu doesnt use that 4. The Urdu 4 looks more like the heart symbol <with the point downwards>, chopped in half <We use the left? half, can't remember been too long> with a line from what was the cusp extending up. It's hard to find the symbol on the net, however when I learnt Urdu numerals, we used that instead of the Persian four. This symbol, I havent been able to find even in Unicode. Other than that Urdu writes numerals left-to-right and words right-to-left, this is a holdover from British Raj.


Remove "hindu" from Arabic-Hindu

I have never seen this term used except here. Ok, hindu\indian origins can be achnowleged in the article but keep refering to them as "arabic-hindu" numerals is clearly a political aganda and POV. "Danish" at coffee shops did not origin in Denmark but is not called "Danish-Italian-Scandavian" whatever.

Me neither, since the term in use is Hindu-Arabic, not Arabic-Hindu, which I've never seen in use. deeptrivia (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic/Persian

Did Europeans get the numerals from the Arabs or the Persians? The intro makes this point unclear (and possibly conflates Arabs & Persians). Ashmoo 06:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Arabs. I'll check if there's any confusion in the intro. deeptrivia (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angle explanation for glyphs?

Sorry if I've missed it in the article - but when I was a kid, I read in the "how and why wonder book of mathematics" that the glyphs for "Arabic numerals" was based on the number of angles within the glyph; the following article Arabic Numerals gives an illustration of this concept.

Is this total bunkum? I'm hoping not as I've trotted it out to many people over the years. And if not - should it be in this article (and/or the numerous others that seem to touch on this topic)? Dugo 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the explanation for the "7' figure the funniest. deeptrivia (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the hook at the top, or the cross? French and German speakers cross their sevens (and often their Z's), so if the cross is the funny part - there's about 150 million people doing it every day. The germans also draw big loops on the bottom of their 9's
Crossed 7
Crossed Z
Dugo 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angle # 1 and 7 in "7" are real cute attempts to fit everything in the hypothesis. 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps people ought to try to understand each other's points here. There is nothing particularly "cute" or "funny" about the way Germans and others write certain numerals, but if these hooks and crosses are relatively modern (which I think they are), of course they cannot be invoked when explaining the origins of the glyphs.--Niels Ø 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Niels Ø. Nothing serious here. Just wanted to say that I've never seen a 7 with a horizontal line at the bottom (like shown on this tripod.com homepage referred above). I completely appreciate the importance of understanding different points of view, but notability is also one of our concerns. I personally always cross my Zs and 7s, so it's not that I'm ridiculing the Germans and French for doing that (I didn't even know that crossing is believed to be more prevelant in those countries -- we do it all the time in India.) deeptrivia (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that's basically my question; is it all hooey? This link gives a "7" and a "9" that more accurately reflects what I saw written in my childhood maths book - and are more credible than the tripod link. German handwritten 9's are extremely close to this figure, and the foot on the "7" seems more believable than the admittedly peculiar constructs on the tripod link. (When posing the question, I found the tripod link for illustrative purposes - and did not read beyond "6" as "1-6" all agreed with memory - so mea culpa there.)
So I'd rather know that it is indeed all crud (conveniently reverse-engineered as deeptrivia suggests) and never repeat it - or know that there is a grain of truth in it.
Aside/Trivia: Discussing this with someone yesterday, they said that when they grew up in Ireland/UK in the 1930s - a crossed seven were always referred to as "a French seven". Dugo 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always learnt with this angle stuff too. Anyway, even more stupid trivia for cut sevens: When God said "7. You shall not commit adultery.", Moses wrote it with a non-crossed seven, but someone started shouting "Cut the seven! Cut the seven!" (to remove it from the list), and so he did cut it, that's why it has this cutting stroke in the middle... Lol... 200.230.213.152 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked out Ifrah's book on the history of numbers, which is a 600 page comprehensive book. It contains half a dozen theories like this (including this) under a section on "Fanciful Explanations for hte origin of "Arabic" numerals" which have long been rejected. This one comes from a Spaniard Carlos Le Maur (1778). These explanations, the book says "are flawed because they are the fruit of the pseudo-scientific imaginations of men who are fooled by appearances and who jump to conclusions which completely contradict both historical facts and the results of epigraphic and palaeographic research". It's a pity that some schools still teach this angle stuff! deeptrivia (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

terminology

Since when is it considered that arabic numerals are "Western" or "European" we may adapt them but it doesn't mean we made them.

Let's hold off on deleting these headers for a bit. There seems to be at least two editors (myself and User:FayssalF) who are concerned with this blanking. Thanks. Kukini 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Latest explanation about the origin of the “Arab numerals”

[ http://www.alargam.com/numbers/sir/1.htm]

File:وهدَفي حسابْ.gif
وهدَفي حسابْ

—The preceding unsigned image was added by Calcul (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a popular tradition, still tough in Egypt and North Africa, the “Arab” figures would be the invention of a glazier geometrician originating in the Maghreb, which would have imagined to give to the nine significant figures an evocative form depending on the number of the angles contained in the drawing of each one of them: an angle for the graphics of figure 1, two angles for figure 2, three angles for the 3, and so on:

[19]

We will have the following format:

[20]...

This remained after nine and zero as they are. Make turn around eight, six, five, four, three and one. Reverse number two and the figure of seven. The delivery of some of these forms to each other, without change in the arrangement, we get this form:

[21]...

This is an Arabic sentence meaning: My goal is calculation (وهدَفي حسابْ) in Kufi line (This name called on all lines, which tend to location and engineering). With that zero is the stillness.

In this ancient manuscript, we find the number two of its original form.

[22]...

To return at Alphabetic numerals Abjad we find that seven letters of this sentence وهدَفي حسابْ is units in the table of Abjad numerals (The Abjad numerals are a decimal numeral system which was used in the Arabic-speaking world prior to the use of the Arabic numerals). This is not a coincidence. Since the Abjad numerals were often employed to record the history of the events, the value of the sentence وهدَفي حسابْ is the date of the invention of these figures. 6+5+4+80+10+8+60+1+2 is 176. 176 hijri is 792, history very appropriate to put these figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.12.207.41 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "explanation" appears to be a) original research, b) in conflict with the information presented in the article's existing information/images showing the evolution of these symbols, and c) largely incoherent in both grammar and content. Please do not add your image again without discussing it here first. Ruyn 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see well that the image takes place here for a long time and proves in a scientific explanation that Arabic numerals are Arabic.--Manssour 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG. Just finished removing this joke from wikipedias in a dozen languages. deeptrivia (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was added here To complement the theme : Angle explanation for glyphs? and You(deeptrivia) are not here responsible for all wikipedia.--Manssour 08:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this image is a joke, what will you tell about these images? 123456789--Manssour 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, fuor 4, five 5, six 6, seven 7, eight 8, nine 9, and ten o.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algarismos_ar%C3%A1bicos

Rename

Rename this article to Hindu Numerals as it originated in India and was first created by Aryabhatta. I though the whole point of Wikipedia was to make people get the right knowledge, but the correct title is not correct.

It's a good thing the second paragraph is there, else the reader may forget that they're Indian in origin, as related in the first paragraph.

Formatting problem

Partway down the page, you have an image of the Hindu numeral system, in the section "Origins". The formatting at this point is messed up. It's got overlapping elements. I don't know enough to fix it.

Femcofounder (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information

In the introduction to the topic, it says: these numerals are called in Arabic language itself, "Hindu numerals"

This sentence is either wrong or very misleading.

In Arabic, we call the numbers that are used in the middle east "Indian Numerals", they are represented (from right to left) as: ٠ ١ ٢ ٣ ٤ ٥ ٦ ٧ ٨ ٩

However this term (Indian Numerals) is used to only refer to these numeral, not the ones that are used in Morrocco, North Africa, and Europe, which are: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. This form is referred to as "Arabic Numerals" in the Arab world

In other words, we refer to the numbers we use in the middle east as "Indian", and refer to the ones commonly used by North African Arabs and the rest of the world as "Arabic".

(67.171.224.169 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabic_numerals&oldid=202949802"