Talk:Arabic numerals/naming

There is a dispute as to how the article about the concept variously known as Arabic numerals, Hindu-Arabic numerals, Hindu numerals, European numerals, and Western numerals should be titled.

Do note "vote" below for any option until the options have been solidified and agreed upon and the arguments for each option are presented. Any votes before that time will be reverted.

Options

1. Arabic numerals
2. Hindu-Arabic numerals
3. Hindu numerals
4. European numerals
5. Western numerals

Arguments for and against each option

Arabic numerals

• For
  • Reason 1: It's the term actually used by English-speaking non-academics. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Against
  • Reason 1: It is a Eurocentric term. It speaks to how the numerals entered Europe and not to how they evolved. Arabic numerals should be replaced by the more globally acceptable term Hindu-Arabic numerals or Indo-Arabic numerals.

Hindu-Arabic numerals

• For
• "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.
  • Reason 1: In accordance to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which says:

1. "...the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Please see the disambiguation page at Arabic numerals (disambiguation). Although "Arabic numerals" is a common colloquial name, it is hardly ever used in academic articles about the numerals, like this one is supposed to be.
2. "...if we ignore potential ambiguity, the ideal of simplicity can be at odds with the ideal of precision." There are a bunch of different "Arabic numerals." This makes the title unprecise.
3. "...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, not only on wikipedia, but elsewhere in academic articles.
4. "...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." From personal experience (if at all it counts), I can say it is misleading, since most people don't even know about the Indian origins of the numerals. More importantly, it is misleading because there are other uses of "Arabic numerals", and there is a possibility of confusion.
5. The rationale behind the common names principle is to allow recognintion by people and search engines. "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. For encyclopedias like Britannica, this must be a very serious issue, since they earn their livelihood out of the encyclopedia, and they would do anything to make their articles more recognizable to people and search engines. There is a good reason why they still chose to name their article "Hindu-Arabic numerals."

• • Reason 2: Disambiguation issue (Arabic numerals (disambiguation))
  • Reason 3: Encyclopedic precedent 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".
  • Reason 4: Preferred academically 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)

• Against
  • Not colloquial

Hindu numerals

• For

• Against
  • The term is not used with this meaning. It may instead be used for the whole family that includes the glyphs 1234567890.

European numerals

• For

• Against
  • Were not invented by the Europeans, and are not used only in Europe.

Western numerals

• For

• Against
  • "Western" as opposed to what?

Consensus building

• Views in the form of votes for an option will go here after the options and arguments for each are presented.

Discussion

Are there any other valid options I missed? At some point unfavorable options should be eliminated or we can do a sort of runoff or approval voting. - Taxman ^Talk 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel you should delete European and Western right off the bat as non starters. We'd be mad to call the article either of those two. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A valid choice of options depends on the intended voting method, but I agree with Theresa that those are non-starters. The problem is that I consider Hindu a non-starter, as well. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of you above. deeptrivia (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, eliminate the latter two. The reason we need Hindu numerals is a practical one: it gives Hindu nationalists who object to any mention of the Arabs a place to vent without disturbing the discussion.

P.S. Are we going to have minimum edit requirements to be eligible to vote this time? kwami 22:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone object to mentioning Arab in the last discussion, I don't think we need to make allowance for Hindu numerals now. And yes, are the minimum edits still required? --Pranathi 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not to consider users is up to the admin (100 edits is pretty much the standard on AfD, but usually isn't used in requested moves as most moves are uncontroversial). Because of the controversy, and to give off a fair appearance, as it were, I'll probably not be doing the next request for this page - so it'll be up to next admin. Usually with large discussions is it used to filter out "ballot stuffing", etc.. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)