Talk:Arabesque

message: This article is all very well, but this is not what "arabesque" actually denotes in the history of the arts. Arabesque, with as much connection to "Arab" as "grotesque" has to grotta, is a repertory of scrolling, bifurcating calligraphic, non-geometric decorative ornament, whether filling panels or whole surfaces. "Arabesque" is defined in John Fleming and Hugh Honour, Dictionary of the Decorative Arts (1977; the Oxford Companion would say very much the same) as "Intricate and fanciful surface decorations based on rhythmic linear patterns of scrolling and interlacing foliage, tendrils, etc., usually covering the entire surface with a network of fine ornament in zigzags, spirals, knots, etc. Human figures are not used—as they are in grotesques." In the human figures they differ slightly from Fiske Kimball's description (in The Creation of the Rococo, 1943, p 55) of Jean Berain's arabesque ornament: "Again we findbroken opposite scrolls, with shells or palmettes radiating from their junctions, swirls of acanthus diverging from their volutes, with finials of interlacing bandwork. In many instances a figure occupies the incorporeal central tabernacle of bands and scrolls a figure standing perhaps on a scrolled pedestal garnished with a lambrequin and sheltered by a suspended valanced baldaquin. Such was the vocabulary and vocabulary of Berain's ornament..." Arabesque ornament can be found in thirteenth to sixteenth century illumninated manuscripts. A good start is Peter Ward-Jackson, "Some main streams and tributaries in European ornament 1500-1750: Part II: The Arabesque" in Victoria and Albert Museum Bulletin July 1967. I have the issue here in the library somewhere... But I think, since the common perception of arabesque is so far from what is confidently presented in this article, it would be an uphill struggle. The Wikipedia reader should be made aware of the dislocation here, but this article is not on my Watchlist. --Wetman 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange then that the Grove Dictionary of Art says: "Over the centuries the word has been applied to a wide variety of winding and twining vegetal decoration in art and meandering themes in music, but it properly applies only to Islamic art." The Oxford Companion is not so emphatic, but covers Islamic art "one of the most ubiquitous features of Muslim decoration" before turning to Western art. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The ordinary meaning of "arabesque" in ornament

message: Arabic art is not the same as arabesque 41.225.128.187 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC dolce dance studio can show it to you  
::Now fixed. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic art shouldn't redirect here

message: I agree with the comments above. This subject is properly about a style of  European art derived from Arabic sources. Arabesque is a French word denoting "like Arabic". It is not about the prototype itself nor about motifs in Arabic art per se. The whole article needs rewriting, perhaps with a transfer of parts of the existing text to an article on Arabic art. Also, the template is far too obtrusive and wide-ranging, for which reason I have removed it. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as the term is also widely used in the art history of Islamic art - see this gbooks search. Anyway, that is what the article we have is mainly about. There is no "style of  European art derived from Arabic sources" as such, but motifs called arabesque are used at various times & places in Europe, as Wetman articulates above.  The article, like nearly all on this subject area, is of course currently pretty poor. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

text: This is just comical! The very first ghit on the link I gave is from a recent British Museum book by Sheila Canby, the head of their Islamic dept and the other entries round up the cream of art historians specializing in Islamic art.  You will see lower down that Oleg Grabar has written complaining that the use of the term in Islamic art history is an Orientalist construct, but that is just futher evidence of its universal usage in the subject. But you and your 1959 Penguin  book, which as quoted does not in fact support you, know better!  What is the logic of your "therefore" in "It cannot therefore apply to Arabic art itself"? There is none. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of the matter is what the term is used to describe. It occupies a far more prominent place in histories of Islamic art than of Western art, and there is no overall term in English, or as far as I know in Arabic or Persian, that is an alternative. The etymology is beside the point. The OED definitions 1.2 and 2, which I can't be bothered to retype, do not support your position at all, not that they are always very reliable for art terms. Nor do the sources you yourself quote give any hint that the term is restricted to describing Western art. It is a strange argument that a term meaning "Arab-style" cannot be used to describe Arab objects, especially when the evidence of usage is overwhelmingly the other way. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your further changes also. You have produced no references at all for these radical changes, and the comparable google search gives, remarkably, no matches at all: "Your search - "arab motif" "Islamic art" - did not match any documents".  None of the first page of the 110 results for plain "Arab motif"  relate to abstract decorative motifs at all - most relate to literature or the iconography of figurative art. Same for the 116 results for "arabic motif".  Please find out more about subjects before starting pages moves and drastic text changes. You are welcome to start Arabesque in European art, which is what you probably need, although it could remain as a section here. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My post below was written before I had a chance to read your last. I would be entirely happy to start a new article Arabesque in European art as you suggest, but would suggest a corresponding qualification be made to the title of the present article, i.e. Arabesque in Islamic art, if we can agree that the two forms are different. There will need to be some  text in each article describing the relation between the 2 forms, i.e. like the short sentence I added to the current intro. which you have reverted. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree that "voluted, curvaceous, flowing form"s are what the term means; in fact the sense is pretty much the same within Western and Islamic art. I said above that the currect article was poor (at one earlier point you thought it good on Islamic art, but it isn't at all); the text is vague & at least one picture (the roof tiles) just wrong.  It is rarely a good idea to try to work out the meaning of an English word, as arabesque has been since at least 1611 (OED's earliest use), from a French dictionary, though here there is not much difference. I hope we have now got over the idea that the term is restricted to Western art. I will start a rewrite; personally I think that until the article is far longer both East and West can share the same article. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks! It will take me some time to work through the rewrite; much of this was new to me. I recommend the first two links on the google search above, which I am using as references - Canby is short & succinct, & Tabbaa gives an overview of the art historical debates, and is very cutting about the "Islamic view of the world" trope, represented by most of the original article here. I'm not sure what to do about that stuff - maybe move it out to Islamic geometric patterns bolstered by refs from the 3rd & 4th google hits, and other books which present this view. I refer to the Damascus mosque & will add more on this and other early sites; the decoration there is essentially Byzantine, produced by imported craftsmen; most European "arabesque" forms derive relatively little from actual Muslim work, but from Roman and Western medieval forms. It is very common to greatly exaggerate the absence of human figures in Islamic art, as both Canby and Tabbaa point out. As my writing in this area is mostly about Persian miniatures (and Mughal & Ottoman ones), where there are only a very few that don't contain figures, and most contain many, I'm very conscious of this! The division between "arabesque" and "geometric" Islamic decorative forms is treated differently by different writers, as I say, and more will be added on this, though I doubt it will be possible to define a clear boundary. Much of the art using arabesques is Persian, Turkish or Central Asian rather than "Arab" as such. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a better image of the Treasury, with pronounced volutes.  Point taken about Byzantine artists, who were however influenced by Arabic art themselves, for example the church decoration of Sicily. It would be useful if an attempt could be made to state when and where European artists first saw this style: the Normans in Sicily, the Crusaders, the Venetians...etc. A complex issue I know. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Rewrite needed 

message: Please see the new article now created as discussed above, before reading both of your last postings above. It should provide a basis for discussion. It is something concrete to build on, I trust.  Your point as to correct usage re Ara Pacis, well made, and emphasised in the new article. The term is shown to be a misnomer, well-avoided by the art historian. I have used as many of your points in the original article under the section "Western arabesque" along with some of the images. I have mentioned prominently in the intro. the confusion, error and contradiction which exists in much of the literature, which I think we are now both fully aware of. We must discriminate between the reliable & unreliable sources. To repeat the confusion of clearly confused sources in an indiscriminate fashion is unproductive, I would suggest. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New article [[Arabesque (European art)]]

message: The 2 articles have now been separated, with the minimal necessary re-editing & re-organisation of the existing text, and entries provided for each in the disambiguation page. "Not to be confused with" notices have also been added to each article at the top. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Without any prior proposal or discussion? When you have already had a very similar title move reverted? When I have already expressed the opinion that the other article is mistitled, as it actually covers a far wider subject, and when this article clearly covers Western arabesques as well? This is getting very tiresome, and is unproductive. You have also made major undiscussed changes prior to the move in a way that makes it impossible to revert them.  I don't think these are an improvement. There is now no proper definition in the lead for example.  Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not fair or true to say there's been no prior discussion. There's been a very great amount. I specifically messaged your user page when your input here ceased, without response. I mentioned the choices of new article title above even before that without receiving your comment. The previous title move was very productive in sparking the productive debate had here above, started without progress by former contributors to this talk page, and the current move is informed by the debate had. I think we have both discovered that it is impossible to make an adequate definition which covers the 2 types of arabesque, which are only tenuously related if at all. That has certainly been my understanding from the confused sources we both identified. My paramount aim is clarity for the reader, who is still nevertheless informed of the existence of attempts to make a link between the 2 forms, the often incredible arguments for which are impossible to relate clearly because they are so slight and confused. I think each article is now much better placed to develop its own theme in detail, and attempts to relate the 2 forms can still be added if required, but I would suggest as a very subsidiary section, once the form covered by the article in question has been examined thoroughly. My changes to the article were minimal and largely just re-ordering to fit in with the split into 2 articles, I stated that fully in the edit summary/talk page. I purposely left the remains of the section "Western arabesque" in place with a view to a 2-step removal to the new article, which has actually already incorporated most of the text & images, including your own recent contributions. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless the move today came as a surprise, and if it had been proposed I certainly would have objected, as you must have been aware from my previous comments. You certainly did get a response on my talk page, and you be be hearing plenty more about this. Your new article is mistitled - most of what it covers is not called "arabesque" by anyone. Nor is the connection between Islamic art and what are properly called arabesques in the West as tenuous as you think. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the following post above on 17th. March: Incidentally would "Arabesque (European art)" be preferable to "(Western art)". It includes Constantinople I would think. I will create a separate article, including your material on the rabeschi & "rebeske". That is a full consultation. You did not object to this proposal, or give your opinion as to which title for the new article would be preferable. The new article is not mistitled, it deals with a form originating in Roman art (European), was carried on by Greek Byzantine artists based in Constantinople (Europe) and was taken up again in renaissance Italy (Europe). The article explains this clearly, using sources. If you  prefer the title "Arabesque (Western art)" (the exact term used by you in your sub-section, written without consulting me) I would not object. Your very creation of such a sub-section implies that you yourself do believe the two forms to be different.  The issue over correct usage of the term is fully discussed within the new article, see section "Art-historians vs. designers". I am beginning to feel that you are being unconstructive in attempting to block  progress & development in the treatment of this subject. I refer you to the previously existing posts to the talk page complaining about the conflated and confused treatment of this subject within a single article, for example by Wetman. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wetman's objections to the use of the term for Islamic art, like yours, were simply wrong; I think we have got beyond that. You do not seem to have read my reply to your 17/3 post, which in any case did not mention renaming this article. I am only interested in accurate progress and additions, which in this complicated area may have to be done slowly.  The term is confusing enough without introducing new meanings for it, which your article does - I can't agree with any of the sentences in the lead for example.  No one calls the Ara Pacis reliefs arabesques as a technical term, nor are they at the start of anything, but well in the middle of a long development - see the gold crown from the tomb of Philip I of Macedon for example.  I was entirely clear that any title using "arabesque" was wrong for an article covering 2,000 years!  As I keep saying, your article is a start on a very useful and complicated subject, but that subject is not the arabesque, it is the development & revival of foliage scrolls. The sources you are using are also far too general, except for Grove (Turner), who you again think has got it all wrong (ok I agree the current online version is rather odd)!    You admit that Talbot-Rice, your other main source that is any sort of work of art history, does not use the term at all for the things you are describing!  Where does that leave you? I suggest we should be following his example. Properly restricted to decorative art from say 1480 onwards, there is clearly a style of ornament that has evident origins in Islamic styles, such as the Flotner panel above (unfortunately Commons does not have much in this style, but this sort of thing for example). The use of the term in Fuhring and bookbinding literature is much tighter than Osborne etc use, and makes more sense.  This too is what we should be following.  It is silly to hang an article on a term which you use differently from any of your sources, and keep having to claim they have got it all wrong. Change the title to an appropriate one & all of this is not needed, which is just as well it is currently very POV & unsourced.   Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

text: We are progressing, but slowly. You seem fixated on a small number of points in a much wider development, of which you seem largely unaware. You have made up your mind that you know exactly what an arabesque is, & that nobody else at all uses this word to cover the same set of things as you do does not deter you.  We agree that "arabesque" can be used figuratively to describe any curly-twirly shape, whether made by an artist, a smoking cigarette, or somebody waving a stick.  Is it then a helpful title for an article on a topic defined as narrowly as you define your chosen one, when you accept it is not the correct acdemic term?  No.  It is not as if there are no alternatives.  To say "The Flotner panel is Islamic, not Western, it is not a formalistic voluted form" is just silly - you mean it does not meet your own made-up definition of the term. If it is Islamic, what is it doing being produced in the middle of Germany?  What does "formalistic" mean here? Any pattern has a form, and might be called "formalistic" if you like, but it means nothing. "Formalistic" in art history means 'in a regular shape / composed of regular shapes' rather than realistic depiction(s), which applies equally to arabesques from East & West, and the majority of ornamental motifs in any style. In fact it is most often used to describe a way of analysing art, concentrating on the forms, which is exactly what we are trying to engage in here.  There is absolutely no requirement for either sort of arabesque to use acanthus, nor volutes (where are they on your diapered shield by the way?); many definitions do specify the use of interlace, which most of your examples don't show, though other Western ones, and all of the Moresque ones, do. That is one point on which the OED, Fleming and Fuhring all agree, but the Ara Pacis has no interlacing.  There is no point in us on WP deciding what a term ought to mean, and then treating it as though that is what it is generally used to mean, even if it clearly isn't. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article renamed '''Arabesque (Islamic art)'''

message: I must disagree with the way the closer is interpreting the relevant guideline. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". So if a topic that gets more that 50 percent of the traffic, then it is primary by this standard. But there is no suggestion that only a topic that gets over 50 percent of the traffic can be primary. We even have an article that explains the logical fallacy involved: Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. If the traffic standard is everything, why is there material in the guidelines about primary topics according to "long-term significance," or about disambiguation by detail? In the red meat/Red Meat example, only one of the two topics can possibly be responsible for 50 percent of the traffic, yet they are both primary. In addition, I do not think it is proper to base a close on a concern that never came up during the voting, which means there was no opportunity for supporters of the move to address it. Kauffner (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do concur with the fact that my concern was not brought up during the discussion. I will reverse my close and relist it so that can be addressed.--Aervanath (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-RM discussion 

message: The entire article, as it stands today, reads like an essay, or an op-ed article in a Sunday newspaper's arts magazine.  I believe it to be replete with unsubstantiated opinion, and hereby request that the majority of the statements made in the article be adequately supported with citations from reputable secondary sources.
For example, the ignorance implicit in a statement like the following is inexcusable in an encyclopaedia:
... this is a reflection of unity arising from diversity (a basic tenet of Islam).
The basic tenet of Islam is rather the opposite: that the Unity - (at-tauhi:d) is primary, and that diversity arises from the will of the One, that is, the God (al-lah).
It is also nonsense for an article now called Arabesque (Islamic art) to have its first major section discussing the topic and its second major section discussing what is clearly the topic of another article, viz. Arabesque (European art) and not of this article.
yoyo (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an essay 

message: It's time to merge Arabesque (European art) here. That is a load of unreferenced WP:OR, which mostly relates to the spiral volute not arabesques. See the discussions above from 2012. As it is, arabesques in European art are already covered here, so few changes will be needed. The other article is unfortunately too inaccurate to be re-purposed as spiral volute, but some could be used when that article is created. After the merge the article should be renamed to Arabesque (art), but let's do this one step at a time.  Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Those are very different articles, using arabesque on very different basis and are simply not the same. They could  have issues but if the articles are kept that can be solved. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed very different articles, but that is because the "European" one is largely nonsense, describing volute forms that no one calls arabesques. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you are probably right about that, I agree... The "European"  is largely nonsense. But if we merge, Arabesque in Islamic art - wil not be Arabesque in Islamic art any more. Can't say I care much for the European... But I care for this one, because it is a specifically  Islamic art genre. Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It should go to Arabesque (art) or similar. It isn't a genre but a motif, and the European version directly grows out of the Islamic, as this article explains. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that, and I'll copy this to the talk page there. Do you want me to do it? Some might prefer to see it go straight to Arabesque (disambiguation) - with ballet and music it's arguable there is no clear primary meaning. I'll look at the views. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do; and to whichever target you think best. In older discussions I think you favoured the (art) variant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, will do - yes Arabesque (art) if the plain term cannot be justified. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The plain term is currently a dab page, but really all the other terms do seem secondary - obvious enough in the case of European art, but also true of the ballet position and its use in music. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly they all derive from it, but it is their relative prominence now that matters - no doubt most balletomanes have little idea about the art. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hard to compare different artforms, of course. Still, it's a mess having all searches arrive at a dab page. FWIW Oxford put ballet first, while Webster puts Islamic ornament first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Views in last 30 days: 
*Disam 3516
*Arabesque (Islamic art) 6570
*Arabesque (European art) 1764
*Arabesque (ballet position) 2128
*Arabesque (classical music) 888
*Deux arabesques (Debussy) 1545
*Arabeske (Schumann) 389
*Arabesque Records 162
*Arabesque (rapper) 122
...and so on. So the 2 art ones combined are over double the rest combined, and over 4x the next largest. Just under double if Deux arabesques is included, but that is a different term, like Arabeske (Schumann).  So yes, I think the plain term with a hatnote is ok. Let's continue at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  Impressive! I'm happy to go with Arabesque as the target, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: #as nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Support'''

message: ::Oppose. Those are very different articles, using arabesque on very different basis and are simply not the same. They could  have issues but if the articles are kept that can be solved. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed very different articles, but that is because the "European" one is largely nonsense, describing volute forms that no one calls arabesques. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you are probably right about that, I agree... The "European"  is largely nonsense. But if we merge, Arabesque in Islamic art - wil not be Arabesque in Islamic art any more. Can't say I care much for the European... But I care for this one, because it is a specifically  Islamic art genre. Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It should go to Arabesque (art) or similar. It isn't a genre but a motif, and the European version directly grows out of the Islamic, as this article explains. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Oppose'''

message: Copied from my talk: Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, and I'll copy this to the talk page there. Do you want me to do it? Some might prefer to see it go straight to Arabesque (disambiguation) - with ballet and music it's arguable there is no clear primary meaning. I'll look at the views. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do; and to whichever target you think best. In older discussions I think you favoured the (art) variant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, will do - yes Arabesque (art) if the plain term cannot be justified. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The plain term is currently a dab page, but really all the other terms do seem secondary - obvious enough in the case of European art, but also true of the ballet position and its use in music. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly they all derive from it, but it is their relative prominence now that matters - no doubt most balletomanes have little idea about the art. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hard to compare different artforms, of course. Still, it's a mess having all searches arrive at a dab page. FWIW Oxford put ballet first, while Webster puts Islamic ornament first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Views in last 30 days: 
*Disam 3516
*Arabesque (Islamic art) 6570
*Arabesque (European art) 1764
*Arabesque (ballet position) 2128
*Arabesque (classical music) 888
*Deux arabesques (Debussy) 1545
*Arabeske (Schumann) 389
*Arabesque Records 162
*Arabesque (rapper) 122
...and so on. So the 2 art ones combined are over double the rest combined, and over 4x the next largest. Just under double if Deux arabesques is included, but that is a different term, like Arabeske (Schumann).  So yes, I think the plain term with a hatnote is ok. Let's continue at the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  Impressive! I'm happy to go with Arabesque as the target, then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Discussion''' on target

message: including the modern definition of the word used by Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc. is as important as the historical definitions. Kindly do not remove it. QuestFour (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have retained it, but noted it is a huge over-simplication, and downright wrong as to the history. You seem to have missed the point that other, different, but just as modern definitions were already in the article, which you don't seem to have read. Not that I suggest you do that now. Nb neither of the the links you give just above agree in the slightest with what you added to the article, but do agree with what was already there - at the start of the lead in particular.  Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from using unencyclopedic tone per WP:TONE and making the article wordier than it already is. QuestFour (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have much idea of what "unencyclopedic tone" is, frankly. No more edit-warring please! Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology  

message: — Assignment last updated by Odambrosia21 (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Art 353 Art of the Islamic World