Jump to content

Talk:Casablanca

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

Text from 2001

[edit]

This doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry to me. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.191.188.xxx (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2001 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made by the author of the page when it was only about the film with this title and it appeared like this. It was later removed as unconstructive by Eclecticology. He could not have known about the context of that comment, because the 2001 edits hadn't yet been imported into the Wikipeedia database and even once they were, the talk page edit was never imported because it was the only one in the page's history; it was only available on the Nostalgia Wikipedia. The original talk page was deleted in May 2004 because it was a blank page; I've imported all the missing edits. Graham87 13:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second-largest mosque

[edit]

King Hassan's II mosque is the second largest after Mecca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.65.108 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have conflicting sources on this. Provided Mecca is counted as a mosque (which it should be IMO), Hassan II is either the second or the third. Can anyone help? --Vjam 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Casablanca's arabic name

[edit]

The English name of the city, Casablanca, means White House in Spanish. But I think Arabic Dar el Beyda actually means 'House of the White (princesse). It comes from Lalla Beida (The White Princess), for whom a memorial was built in the city.

--Revas 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revas. I am not quite sure of what you said and never heard about that. All I know that the Arabic name is Ad-dar el Beyda and not Dar el Beyda; which means that it has a definite article and therefore can't mean a House of the White (princesse). Cheers -- Szvest 08:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]

I have reverted this to "House of the White Princess" - at least one source seems to confirm (the Rough Guide to Morocco). However, think this needs advice. Historically, this may have referred to a princess, but there is no word for princess in the name. I'd suggest that a better translation might be "House of the White One", but I'm not an Arabic speaker and I'm just surmising. --Vjam 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure again Vjam about what comes in (the Rough Guide to Morocco). All I know is that the time the Portuguese arrived, they called it Casa Branca and I've heard because of a white house on a hill in Anfa. However, I'll seek advice from Khalid hassani who surely can sort this out for us. Cheers - Szvest 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]
Hi Fayssal, thanks for seeking my advice :). As far as I know, the name is in fact from a portuguese origine and was originally Casa branca which means white house (after a white house near the shore visible from the sea) the name has been later transformed to Casablanca. The arabic name Dar el Beyda name derives from Casablanca and not the other way around. See also the French entry : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca#Histoire.--Khalid hassani 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to me that the Portuguese must have been the first to name the town white anything. However, as noted above, the classical Arabic name uses the definite article "el". Not being an Arabic speaker, it would seem to me that this makes the "el beyda" part of the name a noun, rather than an adjective (it is an adjective in the Spanish and Portuguese versions). If "white" is a noun here, then "White House" cannot be the translation, although it could be something more like "House of the White One", as I suggested above.
The basic question (for an Arabic speaker) is: is the "el beyda" in "ad dar el beyda" an adjectival or a noun phrase? --Vjam 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vjam. Good question. It must be noted that there's one more important definite article for dar as well (ad-dar where ad mean al).
If I may clear up the confusion (as both an Arabic speaker and inhabitant of Casa), the Arabic name, using Modern Standard Form, is ad-Dar al-Baida, lit. The White House. It seems to me a bit of confusion occurs in hearing local Casa dialect, where ad-Dar tends to get pronounced d-Dar l-Beida. That is the definate article on Dar (house) tends to get eaten by a lot of people. If Rough Guide is pimping the idea of the White One, that's their ignorance. And, yes, Beida is adjectival to Dar here. Wierd little controversy.(Collounsbury 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Moved the Arabic script in the first para back to being Standard Arabic. This may be wrong, but the way someone had moved things around ended up being incoherent. Please correct if you are qualified to do so. --Vjam 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Independence Section

[edit]

This section needs work as it is simply a random unconnected set of factiods.

Surface

[edit]

The surface of the city would be a great info to insert in the article. Is there any suburb around it? If so, surface and total population would be nice, too. --SidiLemine 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Portuguese domination 1515-1755 is a legend

[edit]

This never happened, according Encliclopedia of Islam the site was desert between 1468 and c. 1756. The project of stablish a fortress in Anfa was forgott after portuguese fracas in Mamura.--83.33.220.71 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

Why is it that there's about 3 sentences on the general population of the city, while there's an entire section devoted to the Jewish demographic which by account of the section, is only a few thousand people? It even starts listing synagogues. While I think the history of Judaism in the city is interesting, the demographic section could use more information on the majority demographics, and less adverts for the synagogues and obscure Israeli plays. 67.71.31.52 (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree!

--196.12.242.148 (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more info on the other demographics in Casablanca, then research and write about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.205.138 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section

[edit]

I think a section about culture is needed. There are lots of movies based on Casablanca. Museums can be included in the culture section, as well as cuisine, music (pop, traditional), etc. --Rochelimit (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

[edit]

A cursory look at the climate section, and in particular the precipitation figures, reveals that they are almost certainly inaccurate. Anyone who has spent time in Casablanca during February and March knows that significant precipitation occurs during these months (and frankly just by looking at the figures, the discontinuity looks suspicious). Other sources corroborate my claim.[1] If noone objects, I suggest this discrepancy should be corrected, probably simply by replacing the current data with data from euroWEATHER. Elostirion (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

The article's lead states that the location is "western Morocco"... Looking at the location on the SVG and Google Maps, this isn't accurate. It's more central and on the northern coast more than anything else. TunaSushi (talk • contribs) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyone care to comment? TunaSushi (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends which map one goes by. -- anon.

Another Climate

[edit]

How comes mediterranean climate is "Bsh" at Köppen's classification?! Bsh is hot semi-arid climate. מתיא (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has been in Casablanca in the summer stares in disbelief at the climate section. Was it created by the Chamber of Commerce to attract tourists? I would add 25F to the totals. Can we find a better source? Profhum (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Could some-one put an arrow on the map indicating the location of the city? To my eyes, the tiny spot could just as well be part of the ocean. Kdammers (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casablanca1950s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Casablanca1950s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Casablanca

[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Casablanca. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marina text is pure PR

[edit]

"=== Casablanca Marina ===

Located on the seafront on 26 hectares, Casablanca Marina offers upscale residential products, office spaces which respect the international standards, shops and a convention Centre up to the national and international expectations for the organization and hosting congresses . Casablanca Marina also embodies an ideal urban and environmental context, it has local services, parks and a professional team to manage the site. it aims to become an essential destination for recreational boaters seeking long stays, or just an unforgettable stopover on their way to West Africa, the Caribbean or the shores of North America. It is noteworthy that the Works of the project has started at the beginning of 2012 and it is expected to be completed in the summer of 2014"


This is disgusting. 213.152.161.30 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, removed. Ljgua124 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Racial makeup"

[edit]

I just eliminated the part "Racial makeup" from the infobox. It was quite ridiculous, saying that there are about 65% Arabs, 24% Berbers and 10% Moriscos. Arabs and Berbers are definitely not "races" in Morocco but language groups, and although it's quite possible that you'd have 65% percent Arab-speaking and 24% Berber-speaking population in Casablanca, we can't assure that without a source. Now the Morisco claim is just ridiculous, as there is no such thing as a Morisco race, and neither an defined ethnic or language group. Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody (IP) added the Racial makeup again. I'm adamant that it is not correct to add figures into the infobox with no source given at all. If there is any observation about some supposed "racial" composition of the city, it might be presented first in the normal text in the Demograpics Section, sourced and explained. Maybe better first debate here. The use of the term "Races" is polemic anyhow. Thanks Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Casablanca. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casablanca. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casablanca. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention the film in the lead?

[edit]

I wanted to be bold and add a mention of the the ever-so-famous movie in the lead, but it was reverted within a minute. My ES read added a mention of the film in lead. feel free to question, but please discuss BEFORE reverting. The revert ES read [...] Unsuitable for the lead. [...]

Now, after swallowing my anger from such refusal without arguments, let's talk this through. @Roxy the dog:, please come here and tell me why you considered my edit bad. I checked the talk before, and there were no consensus for nor against mentioning the film in the lead. If your concern is sources, just say so and I'll see if Google will prove me right or prove me wrong. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 22:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry you got all angry over this @Gaioa:, but you really shouldn't be surprised that a bold edit got reverted, and your rather arrogant edsum got ignored. You are not special enough to forbid anybody from reverting you. May I suggest you read WP:CYCLE, often referred to as WP:BRD, and perhaps abide by what you find there, it'll prevent you from getting all wound up. Also note that your bold edit was not reverted within a minute. As to your refusal without arguments, see my edsum, and try to understand it. I know you read it, because you reproduced it above. I also note that somebody else agrees with me. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um... any arguments about my edit?? As far as I can see, @Roxy the dog:, you have only talked about my behavior. Wanna do something else than mansplaining my arguments, such as discussing the change? Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 16:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The film is mentioned in the "In popular culture" section, and that is sufficient for something only peripherally related to the subject of the article. After all, the film is not about Casablanca, it's about a fictional romance set in Casablanca, and therefore doesn't deserve a mention in the lede of the article. Carlstak (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! See, this is the kind of conversation I want to have on WP. On-topic and free from meta-discussions. Cred to you, Carlstak!
And yes, when I think about it, the movie was not about the city so much that it should be associated with it - the film was set there and the film carried the name in its title. Ok, I back down. We're not mentioning the film in the lead. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 18:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mansplaining? Take a hike. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again with being hung-up on words, huh? Oh well, be thankful someone else could give arguments so that you didn't have to. ;( Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 18:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"99.9% of the population of Morocco are Arab and Berber Muslims."

[edit]

No doubt they form the vast majority, but really 99.9%? That seems implausible for a pretty significant global city. 2602:306:CFEA:170:5C3C:5277:8BC8:C750 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo needs connecting

[edit]

There is a photograph labeled "The Qaid of Casablanca, Si Boubker Ben Bouzid Slaoui, captive on the French cruiser Galilée." No-where in the text is this person mentioned. Who is he and why is he a captive? Also, which person in the picture is he? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D9CB:104:E2D2:F6B3 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop mentioning Salut Casa!

[edit]

I don't think it's necessary to mention the movie Salut Casa!, since it's extremely obscure. We don't need to mention every movie about Casablanca in the Casablanca article. Mucube (talk · contribs) 04:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a propaganda film about Casablanca of great historical significance. It's not obscure at all. إيان (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the edit summary of my revert, I don't see any reason to delete something that fits the topic of the section, is sourced, and doesn't take up disproportionate space. I don't see it as a matter of being "necessary", so much as a matter of being relevant. I can't speak further to how "obscure" it is, but if you can say it about this film you could surely say it about other films mentioned in that section and remove the majority of content for no gain. This seems like an arbitrary motivation in this context. PS: Not sure why you titled this discussion "Stop mentioning Salut Casa"; it's mentioned once. R Prazeres (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casablanca&oldid=1211981257"