External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of slavery in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of slavery in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of slavery in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of slavery in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sock and biased edit clean-up, February 2018[edit]

User:Swingoswingo, User:XLPeeker99p9, User:Oskimua, Special:Contributions/182.58.45.148 and User:Janosik-Ruzalka are all banned Sockpuppets who were involved in disruptive and dishonest editing. The editor was a self-declared non-conformist for which he was banned. See the editor’s comment. The editor is clearly not here to contribute constructively. His comment proves he is not eligible to edit Islamic history articles. In this edit, for example, XLPeeker99p9 wrote About the Mughal empire, W.H. Moreland observed, "it became a fashion to raid a village or group of villages without any obvious justification, and carry off the inhabitants as slaves." But W.H. Moreland in his book, p. 92 actually said Capture was recognised by both Hindu and Moslem law, and in India this recognition led to serious abuses, for it became the fashion to raid a village or group of villages without any obvious justification, and carry off the inhabitants as slaves. In page 91, he wrote Slavery must be accepted as a Hindu institution. Clearly, XLPeeker99p9 grossly misrepresented the source. Slavery-related contents, for example slavery in India, are welcome if it comes from constructive and non-biased editors. But if a seriously biased editor like Swingoswingo makes such content (especially when he rejects all the academic & traditional sources as evident in his remark), it is not possible to justify how much true info it contains, and how much false it spreads, how much misinterpretation it contains. His sources are ambiguous many times; and strangely enough, not a single online source has he used. -AsceticRosé 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Experts' attention needed[edit]

This is a pretty large article with so many claims, and it is written in a haphazard way. It says, for example, Two rough estimates by scholars of the number of slaves held over twelve centuries in Muslim lands are 11.5 million and 14 million, but it does not elaborate how and from where they were brought. It is also not clear whether the information is true at all. There are so many such claims, and it is not clear how much they are true. It narrates the slavery activity in Libya. It is true that slavery activity is present in Libya, but from the sources it is clear that it is a African issue rather than an Islamic issue. The article needs a complete overhaul from experts. -AsceticRosé 18:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awfully biased article with lack of references from the Quran[edit]

Let's make one thing clear, Islam's statement on slavery, was to abolish it gradually. This article makes it seem like it was happily openly accepted, which it wasn't.

You cannot talk about the freed slaves, such as Bilal and such as the ones freed by Abu Bakr, and then say Islam endorses slavery. It makes no sense.

Islam's aim was to end all types of slavery. There was/is many types of slavery, those who owed a large amount of money and couldn't pay, who worked in labour, there was those who were captured and now were ownership of their master, and there was those captive during a battle. By ending slavery straightaway, there would be people who still owed money, people who had no money and people who were still a threat to th muslims of the day, Islam deals with all of them in a unique way so that all sides were satisfied somewhat.

Further proof of this pages terrible biasedness... It mentions jihadists at the end of the page. Jihad does not mean "holy war" this is a myth, yet here it is on a Wikipedia article were supposed sources are used to back up claims.

Typical case here looks like the mentioning of Arab slave trade is being called Islamic. Again, you cannot talk about freeing slaves and then also say there was a Muslim slave trade, it's a huge contradiction, and knowing from the other tet, such as the mythical reference to jihad, it's clear were the bias stands, and again, hardly any quotations from the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccarran (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is absolutely false.
The only thing the Quran states on this matter that for a muslim individual, there are many things considered good deeds, like helping the poor, giving money to people in help, manumitting a slave etc. Nowhere does it say that slavery, let alone the slave trade should be abolished, then or ever.
In fact the hadith plainly explain that Muhammad himself owned slaves, that he had rules for slaves and that in some cases giving a slave to a family member was better than manumitting the slave.He bought more slaves than he sold. Even if you are a Quranist, which would make you a Kufar in most Islamic nations, there is no clear evidence for abolition of slavery even in the Quran itself.
Islamic apologism has no place here. LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it's not false

Here is a reference to "freeing a slave" https://quran.com/90

Freeing a slave is also a act of those who are righteous https://quran.com/al-baqarah/177

The hadith is not the primary source of Islam, even the Quran makes this clear.

The Quran is the best hadith (39:23) The Quran is complete (6:115) The Quran is not missing anything (6:38) The Quran is explained in detail (6:114, 12:111, 41:3, 11:1) The Quran is clarification for all things (16:89) The Quran is the best tafsir (explanation) of itself (25:33)

The point here is, if this is a article about Islam, then you have to make clear, what the source of Islam is, and the source of Islam is it's scriptures, which is the Quran, and in the Quran it makes clear that it is the one and only source of Islam.

The hadith was written long after Muhammed, the deliver of the message, had died. It is a collection of alleged stories, which not one muslim can tell you is 100% true. Hence the reason why they are much discussed in being "likely true" "maybe true" "possibly true" and the Quran is used as a source to back up the claims of their possible truthfullness, but nothing is 100%.

Marccarran (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title[edit]

The name of the article is History of slavery in the Muslim world, but the article also contain information about slavery in the Muslim world of today (21st-century). Would that not mean that the "History"-part of the article title should be dropped?--Aciram (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree, Aciram, something needs to change. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article History of slavery contains a section on 21st century slavery. History of the United States contains a section History_of_the_United_States#21st_century. "History" includes not just the past but also the present.VR talk 07:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help[edit]

Helped I copied some matter along with the references used at Sexual slavery in Islam but it seems to have errors (although it seems to be working fine in the original article). Please set it right.

Your recent edits are not neutral. You arbitrarily copied materials from an article that is already non-neutral. Please seek consensus here before restoring that material.VR talk 14:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccurate statement?[edit]

Arab or Islamic slave trade lasted much longer than the Atlantic or European slave trade: "It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four."

Arab slave trade started before the 6th century, and before the advent of Islam. The European slave trade didn't start with the Atlantic slave trade either. Should this be removed? Ibrahim5361 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While slavery by Muslims predates Atlantic trade, you are right that it obviously didn't predate Europe (Europeans were practicing slavery long before Islam even existed). I'll fix this.VR talk 18:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also one in History of slavery, it would be great if you fix that one as well.
According to South African writer Ronald Segal, the Islamic slave trade lasted much longer than the Atlantic or European slave trade: "It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today [2001] in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four". He also says that the gender balance was different: "Whereas the gender ratio of slaves in the Atlantic trade was two males to every female, in the Islamic trade, it was two females to every male". Concubinage was common, and it was not unusual for men to marry their slaves.

Ibrahim5361 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, did that. You can also be WP:BOLD and do that.VR talk 02:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arab slavery not muslims[edit]

This page should focus only on Arab slavery without the word "Muslims", as Ottoman slavery has its own page, as well as slavery in the Emirate of Bari should be deleted and slavery in this page should talk about Arab slavery alone so that the reader can know it without being confusing With the mention of Ottoman or Barbary slavery, and this page should be To be more arranged, for example, it must be written when and how this slavery began and how the ethnic divisions were in the Umayyad Empire as it was the first to begin with slavery But I need some research and help on the topic of slavery in the Umayyad Empire. it must writing should be detailed in detail Xwasx12s (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. It is a perfectly reasonable grouping, and easier to define/determine than ethnicity of slavers in the multi-ethnic Muslim world. Agricolae (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Page vandalized[edit]

The page has been vandalized yet again. I don't know how to restore it techincally, perhaps some one else can? It should really be protected, because of the controversial subject. --Aciram (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I restored the older version. The easiest way to restore an older version is: Click on "View history", then click on the version you want to restore, then click "Edit". You will see a warning message telling you that all later changes will be lost if you publish that version. If you are sure that you want to undo all later changes, click "Publish changes". --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section on pre-modern Islamic Arab views on Africans[edit]

I wonder how accurate the claim in the section about "Arab views on African peoples" is that "racist attitudes were not prevalent until the 18th and 19th century." I myself doubt that pre-modern peoples in general had the same social construction of race that we do today, but I was nonetheless under the impression that medieval Muslims did look down upon non-Islamic Africans and said disparaging things about them. Is this incorrect? Tyrannohotep (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useful refs[edit]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slaves, as in slave workers are NOT part of Islam[edit]

Lets set the record straight. There are two types of slaves mentioned in the Quran, and the Quran, and nothing but the Quran is the source of Islam.

A captive slave is a temporary prisoner of war. A slave worker is someone like Bilal who is mentioned in the Quran.

Bilal was a freed slave worker. He was freed and relieved of his duties as a slave worker. Islam does not allow slave workers.

When you say things like Islamic countries such as Singapore and Saudi Arabia owned slave workers, you do not list these things as part of Islam. Just because they self recognise themselves as Islamic, it doesn't make it true.

Again, the Quran is the one and only source of Islam. Countries who call themselves Islamic are not the source of Islam.

If you use 3rd party sources, i.e. sources which are not the Quran, then you are not talking about Islam.

Most of this article deserves to be deleated. Marc Carran (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article's title is ... slavery in the Muslim world. Historically many times many Muslims have gone beyond what Islam approves as ideal. And article needs to take note of what actually happened in Muslim world and not just what is ideal in Islam.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed - and where does the Quran say POW slaves are "temporary"? Singapore has never been an Islamic country btw. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"and nothing but the Quran is the source of Islam." Islamic thought is not limited to the Quran, and hadiths are threated as authoritative for religious law. Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hadith are also important and essential sources. Quranists are considered Kafir by most. LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misleading[edit]

Tunisia, a Muslim Arab country, abolished slavery in 1846. 96.9.157.115 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Any non-Muslim could be enslaved"[edit]

In the very first paragraph, this vague sentence appears and I don't see its purpose. I believe there are 2 issues with this sentence. First, I checked both citation 1 and 2 and that statement doesn't seem to appear there.

second, the article is about history of slavery in the Muslim world. A history article is about what happened. Not what could happen. It sounds like its purpose may have been to make a theological argument, which has no bearing on historical events.

Side note I didn't change it yet. I'm still learning Wikipedia and the rules/expectations. Wasn't sure if I should just change it or if I had to argue for it first. Aalswais (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aalswais You seem to make a good point in your sentence ".. history of slavery in the Muslim world. A history article is about what happened. .." So ".. Any non-Muslim could be enslaved .." can very well be changed some thing like to ".. The slave in the markets of Muslim world were predominantly sourced from non-Muslim individuals enslaved in the war zones .." .
Without informing the audience that, 'the slaves in the markets of Muslim world were predominantly sourced from non-Muslim individuals enslaved in the war zones'; to unduly shift responsibility outside of the Muslim world last sentence in second paragraph attempts to shift weight avoiding ".. predominantly non-Muslim individuals enslaved in the war zones" and including obfuscating sentence ".. Many slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world. .."
The sentence ".. Many slaves were imported from outside the Muslim world. .." relies on BBC and skips available academic sources. Is this not misleading encyclopedic audience?
Bookku (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the wording is both a hypothetical and an unencyclopedic generalization at present. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it needs to be replaced with anything. Shall I just delete? Also off topic, when replying here with multiple people do I just click reply to the lowest comment or do I have @ each individual user to make sure they're notified.m Aalswais (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the Islamic world, it was seen as legitimate to enslave non-muslims. Now, of course, in practice, non-muslims living in muslim lands were in fact not seen as legitimate to enslave, only non-muslims living in non-muslim nations. However, the sentence "Any non-Muslim could be enslaved" could simply refer to the fact that non-muslims were seen as legitimate targets of enslavement (under the right circumstances), while muslims where not seen as legimitiate to enslave. In that sense, it is fully legitimate to have in the article. It is important not to remove the fact that non-muslims were seen as legitimate to enslave for religious reasons, while muslims were not, from the article.--Aciram (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Under the right circumstances" is pretty key, and that's what makes it misleading. The right circumstances in a Muslim state would be not paying your taxes. In any modern state, you can similarly be imprisoned for not paying your taxes, but does that make the statement: "Any person can be imprisoned" worth having anywhere without context? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the material pending verification. As it stands the material is unverifiable, as Lewis' work is not free to access and no quote has been provided that validates or provides context to the statement. It was also a violation of MOS:LEAD, since nowhere in the actual body of the page is the same sweeping generalization made. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female male slave ratio[edit]

Article informs ".. Among black slaves, there were roughly two females to every one male .." May be sentence matches the given source since that sourced article is limited to Black slavery. If I am not wrong, even among white slaves numbers of female slaves were more than male slaves.

Male slaves as soldiers may tilt balance a bit towards more male figure but beyond compulsive warring soldiers had better agency of free movement than female slaves. (This is not forum discussion but regarding article content itself to achieve better balance of information with proper RS support)

Bookku (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On another note, this material is ridiculously overly detailed for information in the lead, which is meant to be a summary: it is no place for specifics ... although this isn't even properly specified: it doesn't even mention the time period. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed this as part of a restructuring, both thematic and chronological, of the lead. You're right that it was an odd segue into specifically black slavery, and that is a function of it relying solely on the work of Segal. In any case the more pertinent information is now grouped in the third paragraph, which notes the emphasis on and demographics of slaves from Africa. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"modern slavery"[edit]

Just based off of my cursory attention to the media, is it worth adding a section about the plight of modern south asian workers in countries like the UAE and Qatar, who are essentially trapped? https://hir.harvard.edu/taken-hostage-in-the-uae/ LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert[edit]

Pathawi, you are being disruptive by removing sourced content with this edit. Please explain why you removed it.-1Firang (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's an explanation in the edit summary with reference to the conversation at Rape in Islamic law & discussions of disruptive editing on your Talk page. I don't think it's reasonable to ask me to have the same conversation in multiple locations. In your recent topic ban, one of the complaints made was that your attempting to effect the same edits on multiple pages & demanding of other editors that they do the work of explaining why misrepresentations were misrepresentations was a 'drain on Wikipedia's editorial resources'. If you sincerely wish to have this conversation, you can continue it where it started. But you can't drag other editors around Wikipedia by making them discuss the exact same edit in four different places. Pathawi (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pathawi: I will discuss it only here. The sentence you removed was, "The consent of a slave for sex, azl or to marry her off to someone else, was historically not considered necessary.". The source cited for it says that, so please self revert your edit.-1Firang (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cited source says, "They (scholars) agreed unanimously that an enslaved female's consent was never required for a marriage contracted by her owner. Al-Shafiʿi (d. 820) is typical: “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.”
Footnote 7 It strains logic to suggest that an enslaved woman is subject to being married off without her consent or against her will to whomever her owner chooses but that he cannot have sex with her himself without her consent. It is even more of a stretch to accept that the need for consent within concubinage was so obviously a condition for its legitimacy that no one considered it necessary to say so, but that the absence of the need for a slave's consent to her marriage required explicit affirmation.
A slightly different example reinforces the legal distinction between marriage and concubinage. In discussing withdrawal (ʿazl) as a method of contraception the jurists distinguish between consent (possibly) required from wives and that (never) required from enslaved concubines. They disagreed about whether husbands needed their enslaved wives’ agreement to practice ʿazl or that of their wives’ masters. (A person cannot simultaneously own and be married to the same slave, though people can under certain circumstances marry other people's slaves.) All accepted—sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly—that a man could practice withdrawal with his own female slave without seeking her permission".-1Firang (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You cannot explicitly copy your own contentious text from another article & then refuse to discuss it at the location of origin. Discussions should be centralised. It's not acceptable to drag other editors around from article to article to have the same conversation: It gets quite hard to follow. For other editors who are interested in participating in this conversation, the original discussion is at Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Kecia Ali Source. There is further minor conversation lower down on the same Talk page: Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Removal of sourced content falsely claiming it was discussed. Pathawi (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Anachronist, Barbardo has removed sourced content here also, the last being with this edit. I request you to suggest what to do.-60.243.252.254 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do? Read WP:BRD and follow that advice. After that, you can try Wikipedia:Third opinion. I don't know why you are pinging me. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said before find a credible source that mentions it in a accurate way alongside with proof from primary text kecia ali has failed. Barbardo (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maghbreb slave trade[edit]

There should be a section on the slave trade of the pagan and Christian Berbers that happened during and after the Islamic conquests of north Africa.


H20346 (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslim slave trade "relatively mild"??[edit]

According to this article, the Muslim slave trade was anything but "relatively mild" ... Rpot2 (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our article doesn't say that, it says "some authors" say that (the cited source uses "many authors"), followed by a "however" — although the following sentence deals with racism not the slave trade. I have removed the "relatively mild" phrase. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

changing words[edit]

some user is changing the words to sugarcoat the slave trade in the magrehb/north africa. Stop this user. H20346 (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're talking about the edits made by that IP, looks like they've been reverted. In future, you are quite welcome to revert unconstructive changes yourself. Masterhatch (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have we verified what the source actually says? Do the citations support the content? VR talk 04:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is a controversial subject, the page could perhaps be protected from non-registered users. Pages of this kind are often vandalized by bias IPs. I think it was me who reverted the user edits mentioned above, but I is difficult to revert edits if they are several in a row.--Aciram (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My main concern it to ascertain whether the IP's edits are in fact wrong. Has anyone checked the sources to ensure that that's indeed the case? I tried, but the sources are not easily accessible online. VR talk 02:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I support the protection to make verifying of the page editing easier so that only more experienced users could do so. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories