Talk:Cairo

Flag

I see all over the place that the flag of cairo isn't the one used in on this page. Is it even official, or just some idiot made up the flag. Eehuiio (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

no i am from the residents i see the white flag but i see the blue one more more often like 95% of the flags are blue Ilovemycountry1 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

we have two variations:

1-sky/normal blue background with the emblem in the middle

2- white background with the emblem in the middle

I never honestly saw the one with a circle and two colours Ilovemycountry1 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The Coptic name for Cairo

The Coptic name for Cairo should be added because it is an Egyptian city, and the Coptic language is used in churches in Egypt. In Egyptian colloquial Arabic, there are thousands of words of Coptic origin that we use daily in Egypt. Articles like "Luxor" and "Aswan" contain both the Coptic and Arabic names for the city. Even though "Aswan" is not an Arabic word, does this mean that the Arabic name for Aswan should be removed? @Remsense: Egyptiankeng (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Egyptiankeng. Please remember that the introduction serves only as a summary of the most important facts in the article. All other details are covered in the rest of the article. The purpose of providing any non-English name in this part of the article is for general knowledge about what the place is most commonly called by locals and it should not take up significant space (see guidelines at MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV). As nobody speaks Coptic natively today and as the vast majority of people in Cairo and Egypt speak Arabic, it should be fairly clear why it's useful to include the Arabic name here and not useful to include the name in a dead language, as Remsense already stated ().

Note: I see that Snowstormofigorion recently removed the Coptic names from Aswan and Luxor already; as far as I'm concerned, this is also right, for the same reasons as above. Information about etymology, names in minority languages, etc should be covered in a separate section below the introduction, as it already is here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Copy-edit

@Snowstormfigorion: this wording is grammatically dubious if not ungrammatical altogether, but even if it wasn't, the word "instated" is so uncommon and unusual (certainly in this context) that most readers would not even understand it. The simple copy-edit I made preserves the exact same intended meaning as you edit but makes it readable (). You have not explained what was wrong with it. Either way, the new statement cannot be left as is: please restore the copy-edit or use an alternative that does not compromise the readability of the article. If you don't like either of those options, then we'll restore the previous wording, which contained no errors anyways. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sigh; come on, Prazeres. Does this really call for an entire discussion like this? I've changed the word back to "instructed" for now, the rest as mentioned in the edit summary is apt and should suffice. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The sighing is indeed warranted: if you don't want to waste my time explaining simple things to you, then think twice before automatically reverting a mere copy-edit without reason. I've fixed another grammar mistake in your latest edit, it looks fine now. (Technically, the new wording incorrectly reads as al-Mu'izz also picking the site of Cairo, but that can be fixed later.) R Prazeres (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Then kindly don't waste everyone else's with trivial matters like this; again, "in founding" is grammatically sound and correct, and as said above, the wording can stay for now. This really is an argument that doesn't need to exist. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? In English, "Al-Mu'izz instructed Jawhar in founding a city" means that al-Mu'izz taught Jawhar how to found a city, not that he asked him to do so. You are not a native speaker of English and this is not your first writing/grammar error on Wikipedia: do not restore wording that other experienced editors are telling you is grammatically incorrect. I agree: this is an argument that doesn't need to exist, so don't make it. R Prazeres (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No, and it can hold both meanings; nevertheless, I've restored the wording to "establish" because frankly this is just annoying and I'm done with this. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

"Jews in Cairo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jews in Cairo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 5 § Ethnic group redirects until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Note about recent sock edits

Heads-up: since December 2025, this article has been extensively modified by a sockpuppet account, إبراهيم جبر 1996 (SPI report), who has been found to consistently introduce content with misleading citations that are unreliable and/or do not support the material for which they are cited, most likely with LLM assistance (see recent WP:ANI report here or at the ANI archive).

The article's edit history looks too complex for a wholesale revert, but much of the text has been affected and still contains non-reliable sources (sometimes very obvious ones) mixed in with older material of better quality. I'll see what I can revert myself, but please keep an eye out for poor-quality material, as any attempts to improve the article as a whole (like a GA nomination) would inevitably need to deal with this. R Prazeres (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: I've removed a lot of the material added by the block evading sock. It's considerable, but I don't believe any major edits by other editors were caught up in the reverts. If there were any notable errors or oversights, please let me know.

If any unrelated editors (i.e. not sockpuppets or meatpuppets) want to re-add or re-use any of the removed content that was created by the sock account, then please do so only if you personally check the content yourself for NPOV and for accuracy of the citations (the main problems that characterized that sock's edits) and make appropriate revisions. As WP:BLOCKEVASION mentions: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." R Prazeres (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)