Talk:Mesa, Arizona/Archive 1

Why is it called Mesa?

Where is the mesa? JWSchmidt 07:31, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Here is the reply to the above question that Clay Tompson gave.

• I guess the reply from Clay Tompson implies that there is no actual mesa related to the name "Mesa". I still do not understand the term "Mesa Pioneers". Is that a name given (long after Mesa was settled) to the European people who first came to Mesa? Or was there a specific group of settlers who called themselves the "Mesa Pioneers" and who just happened to end up at a location that is now called Mesa in their honor? JWSchmidt 16:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The so-called mesa is most visible from the north side of the city past Brown Road. Facing north the terrain slopes down dramatically more than 100 feet. Compare Mesa's elevation at 1,241 feet to Phoenix' at 1,092 feet. If the dams upstream of the Salt River busted, Phoenix would be underwater and Mesa would likely be unscathed. The Mormon pioneers--who predominately settled the area--called Mesa, "Mesa" although they would not have referred to themselves as "Mesa pioneers". For generations looking back at history, however, "Mesa pioneers" and "Mormon pioneers [of Mesa]" are virtually synonymous. —B|Talk 00:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Pima Mohmli)

(Pima Mohmli) what is this? I deleted it once and it was reverted back. Google doesn't return any info. I'm sure we can find the proper spot for it if it has anything to do with Mesa, Arizona. Buster 06:53, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Mesa is part of traditional Pima territory, and even today it is near two reservations inhabited by Pimas. In accordance with my project to add Native American names for places on and near reservations (so far for some Navajo, W. Apache, Hopi, Pima, and Papago places), I included Scottsdale, Mesa, etc. because Native American (mostly Papago and Pima, or in older times Hohokam) heritage is an important part of the history of the Valley. The Pima name for the City of Mesa is "Mohmli". (in addition, one might note that 1.66% of Mesa residents are Native Americans, so the name "Mohmli" will not just be familiar to people on the reservations, but to Pimas living in Mesa as well)--Node 08:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, having lived in "Mohmli" for some twenty years I have never heard it called that, but as you say less than 2 percent are Native Americans and probably a lot less then that are Pimas that actually speak the language. It would be nice if you could write an article on what a "Pima" is before placing obscure place names about. Some would say you are placing the cart before the horse. I strongly doubt that this is "common wiki practice" since this is the English version. Has there already been a discussion on your project? The way it's placed in the article now is not very encyclopedic, and may be more fit for wiktionary. On the other hand writing a section in the Mesa article describing Mesas Native American history would be interesting and encyclopedic.

After a discussion with a Native American Pima Indian, he said that even when using there native language they refer to Mesa as Mesa. Therefore, I am deleting your obscure "mohmli" entry. --Buster 16:44, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Even more interesting (at least in my POV), having lived in "Mohmli" my entire life, I have heard it called that.

If you have a problem with "obscure place names", perhaps the place to fight that is at User talk:Rambot rather than with me. Lisbon, Ceuta, Melilla, Warsaw, Tokyo, Puerto Peñasco all follow similar protocol regarding native vs. English names.

Whether or not this is the English version has no relevance on noting the non-English or historical names of places in their English-language articles, as has been done for many many months before you even knew what Wikipedia was.

As far as discussion, I have indeed discussed my project with a few notable users concerned with such things (should you wish, I can provide their names). They all thought it was a very good idea and nobody raised any objections, nor have any objections been raised at any pages I have added to until now (even other cities in the PMA to which I have added Pima or Papago names have not been reverted or disputed, even though those articles are revised on a regular basis).

You may have had a discussion with a single Pima, but I have discussed the matter with many, and the name for Mesa as given in every single Pima dictionary I have ever seen is "mohmli" (sometimes written "moomli", "mo:mli", etc).

Considering that prior to European settlement, the entire population of the Greater Phoenix Area was Papago or Pima (with the exception of the Maricopas and Yaquis and ancient peoples), it could also be considered a historical name.

I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but I found your post to be offensive to Native Americans and I hope you'll remove those things which might be offensive to some Wikipedians so nobody gets hurt.

I'll not add the reference back until this dispute has been resolved (and if I win, of course).

Best wishes, Node 01:40, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Node, it's not about winning. It's about accuracy. Just because the Pima Indians have a word called Mesa does not mean that is what they called the city of Mesa. They (Pimas) used that word long before there was a city called Mesa (as you yourself already insinuated). This is hard for me to explain. The Spanish also has a word in there dictionary called Mesa, to them it means table or tabeland. The city of Mesa was named by Mormon settlers. To the Mormons it meant, in English roughly, high flat ground. So the Pima word "Mohmli" was never meant to be a second name, it's just a coincidence. The Pima Indians would have to of had ESP to know that there was going to be a city someday in the future named Mesa. Should all articles in wikipedia start with foriegn language tranlations? I think not. I think I made my case, shall we move this to RFC for furthur comment?

1. Of course this is about winning. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this dispute.

2. You are right, of course, about the accuracy and the word for "mesa" vs. the word for "Mesa". However, since I was adding placenames in general, I used sources with lists of translations of placenames, and I happen to know for a fact that the word for "Mesa, Arizona" is "mohmli", and the word for "mesa" (as in the geological formation) is *not*.

3. You are also right that the Pima name came after the Anglo foundation of the city. However, I still believe it is relevant since Mesa is in traditional Pima territory and even today is near reservations.

4. If you would skim my previous posting, you would perhaps notice that I provided links for reference to other pages using a similar practice for translation of place names: Lisbon, Ceuta, Melilla, Warsaw, Tokyo, Puerto Peñasco... if I added all the pages like that (without, of course, including those pages to which I added the names), the list would be much, much longer.

5. The Pima language (identical to the Papago language) is still very much alive today, as are the Pima as a people. There are over 11819 speakers of the language (making it the second-most spoken native american language in the US) in the US, and probably around twice as many across the border in Mexico. There are 181 monolinguals in the US (no official statistics for Mexico). Most children are still learning the language from their parents, and the language is being used in reservation schools from the earliest years on (because of this, even people who don't learn the language from their parents will learn it at school). In addition, it belongs to the same language family (Uto-Aztecan languages) as the most-widely-spoken native american language in North America, Nahuatl (which even has its own Wikipedia which is just starting to gain momentum) which has over 1 million speakers and was once refered to as "the Mexican language" and was the lingua franca of Northern and Central Mexico and even parts of the US.

6. I'm sorry I took offense; the first time I read your posts they appeared inflammatory, but now they don't. I hope you can relate. (I haven't had much experience with conflict resolution at Wikipedia since most of the pages I edit tend not to have much traffic or my edits aren't usually disputed if they do)

--Node 07:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just thought I'd make a note that since although you have been very active on WP for the past couple of days, but have still not posted a reply, I will soon revert the article because it appears you are not willing to discuss this further.--Node 23:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh and I reread all of my posts here and found nothing "offensive", can you say the same? Have a nice day! --Buster 04:11, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Node you might want to read What Wikipedia entries are not number 5 concerning idiom guide. --Buster 06:12, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't apply, because ordinary words and even place names are more than a few crayons short of being idioms.

Node, please add your replies to bottom of the section so that they are in chronological order, thank you. Buster
As I already suggested we need to take this to WP:RfC. Since this project of yours will involve many articles, I would suggest you write up your case for inclusion and submit it to RfC. As I intend to delete all idioms found that are not written in a manner put forth by Wikipedia policy's. However, if peer review finds your entry/project valid, so be it. --Buster 23:29, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't apply, because ordinary words and even place names are more than a few crayons short of being idioms. (as I said before)

That clause only applies to articles like... I forgot the article title, but it was something about a woman hitting somebody six times until something did something, which meant getting paid every six days or something. When it was deleted, that clause was added.

In addition, although I may not've put my arguments in your preferred position, would you kindly respond to them?

Oh, also, if you plan to delete all such things, why not start with Lisbon, Ceuta, Melilla, Warsaw, Tokyo, Puerto Peñasco rather than *my* articles? Or at least do them eventually. I'm sure nobo- I mean everybody- will approve.

I did respond to your misplaced reply and you bring no new arguments for inclusion. As far as Lisbon, Ceuta, Melilla, etc. is concerned they may well be correct and those cities actually do go by two or more names. Mesa does not. What we are concerned about here is Mesa, Arizona and to stop you from misrepresenting other articles with your idiom project. --Buster

Yes, Mesa does. What are you, suddenly an expert on the O'odham language? Ceuta and Melilla are officially known as that, but they have an Arab minority, are historically Arab cities, are Spanish exclaves bordering only Morocco (which is an Arab country), etc... You are grossly misrepresenting my project by saying that it is an idiom project.

--Node 00:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an expert are you saying your are one? Pay attention Node. Please build a case for inclusion or drop it. Give us links and sources to confirm any of this and this dispute will end. This discussion is getting way to juvenile. --Buster 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

For the record an idiom is defined as "the language peculiar to a people or to a district, community". Buster

That's not what *my* sources say. That is a secondary definition and is obviously not what is meant in "what Wikipedia is not" as can be clearly discerned from the examples given.

--Node 00:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Primary Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary --Buster 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about you, but I think that since this is Wikipedia, the Wikipedia definition should be given top billing, especially since it works in context ("idiom" is used as a synonym or near-synonym to "slang")

Node 22:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"We aren't teaching people how to talk like a" Pima Indian. See What Wikipedia entries are not. --Buster 14:10, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? I think most likely a Pima Indian would use English as their preferred language, having one parent of Indian heritage and the other of Pima heritage, English would clearly be the common language. This is regarding the Pima name for Mesa, not the Pima-Indian name for Mesa.

--Node 00:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

I added this talk page to WP:RfC Hopefully with some third party participation we can conclude this dispute. --Buster 23:38, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

How about mentioning the Pima name along with one of the sentences in the opening paragraph (though not giving it top billing, since the article pertains to the modern-day city more than the historical name). How about ending the first paragraph with something like, "Mesa was founded January 1878 in an area the local Pima Indians traditionally call 'Mohmli'." That way, the name gets a proper introduction to people who don't know what it is. (Please edit for accuracy — I'm still confused about the actual history of the Mohmli name after wading through the argument.) -- ke4roh 14:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

That would be agreeable to me, but my concern now is rather or not it is verifiable and accurate. Node has not cited any sources or references where the name "Mohmli" can be confirmed as an alternate to Mesa, Arizona. The Pima language is so obscure that it is not relevant to this or any other name place article that is not written directly about the Pima Indians. --Buster 15:57, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

(I've just provided a reference below). In addition, the Pima language is *not* obscure, especially not within the context of Arizona - there are well over 12000 speakers in Arizona (plus more in Mexico), and it is still being learned by children. Many places are still inhabited by over 80% who speak the language, such as Sacaton, Arizona. --Node 22:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that there are over 12000 Pima language speakers? Sacaton, Arizona is good example of how obscure the Pima language is. With over a 95 percentile of Native Americans and still the name of the town is Sacaton not (Pima Ge'e Kih). Can we just remove these idioms and move on? --Buster 23:05, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

The United States Census. Or do you not trust them? The *English* name of the town is Sacaton. Even towns with 100% populations of Native Americans will always go by an English name on a national level if they have one, because it is the only name recognized by white people at large. Again, these are not idioms according to the Wikipedia definition, and since this *is* Wikipedia, I think we should go by that definition. If you believe the Pima language is obscure, you are gravely wrong. --Node 02:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far in playing down the Pima language's relevance. They were there first, and as such, deserve some recognition. Let's see if we can work out the history of the name first. I'm not surprised Google has nothing on it (though the Pima Indian web site would do well to rectify that), and I doubt my library has any information on it, but perhaps we can establish some references here on the talk page to support the history of the name. -- ke4roh 16:36, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

It really depends on where you live. The Scottsdale Public Library and the Mesa Public Library both have the dictionary I mentioned below as do other libraries in the area; outside of Arizona, the book can be found at many university libraries or (if you're that determined) ordered from Amazon.com or bn.com. (with bn.com, you can request that they ship it to your local store; since you'll be under no obligation to buy it, you can check my reference and then decide not to buy it at no cost to you) Node 22:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Unless the Pimas had a settlement there which went by the name that is being added to the article, then the fact that they have a word for mesa in irrelevant. RickK 23:54, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, the word is the name of the city, not the word for "mesa". --Node 00:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having come acress this at RfC and not having any interest one way or the other, there seems to be two issues: 1) Is there in fact a group of people who commonly use the term "Mohmli" to refer to the city of Mesa, Arizona; and 2) is that group's use of the term somehow significant to the history of the city.

For 1), I'd like to see some externally verifiable evidence about this. So far, we only have Node's word about this (and I mean no disrespect), but I think some verifiable evidence would be helpful.

Sure thing. Unfortunately, I cannot give you any Internet references. I can, however, refer you to the Papago and Pima Dictionary by Dean and Lucille Saxton which is availible from Amazon.com and bn.com and should be availible at the libraries of any major university. You will not find this information looking up "mesa" or "mohmli" in the dictionary section, but rather in one of the appendixes where there is a list of placenames in English and in Papago/Pima.

For 2), we need to consider whether the term has some significant historical relation to the city. I mean, if there were a Pima settlement called "Mohmli" there (or even nearby) before Mesa was established, then it would clearly have historical significance. But if it is simply a translation of Mesa into the Pima language, then I'd say not. This is not the same as including the native language names of cities in other countries. Yes, the Portuguese call Lisbon, Lisboa, but it is a Portuguese city--Mesa is an American city and unless the Pima name predates the city or is somehow otherwise historically significant, it is not relevant to the article. older≠wiser 16:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of this, unfortunately, I am not sure. I do know that there was a Pima/Papago (basically the same) presence in the area prior to European arrival, however I could not find any sources as to whether there was an actual settlement located on the site of what is now Mesa. Many a place (including on reservations) have been referred to in the past as having been "established" by Europeans, but often it becomes clear later that there was already a settlement there and that the Europeans simply did not believe it was "legitimate" or that it really counted as a town. For example, at the site of present-day Scottsdale were two villages; a Pima one and a Yaqui one (I'm not sure if the latter is true, but I have read books referring to a "Scottsdale" dialect of Yaqui). However, the "City of Scottsdale" was established by Winfield Scott, a White man. (there are official documents about the eviction of Native Americans from the area which may also exist for Mesa). The same is true for Arizona City, Tucson, and elsewhere that currently have only a minority population of Native Americans, as well as places (such as Sacaton, Arizona that are on reservations, but were once "established" as towns by White people who were later evicted).

Cheers, Node 22:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unless anybody wants to continue this dicussion (no consensus was reached, the last poster was Node, and it seems to be dead), I'm going to add the information back. Why remove useful information? If anybody has any objections, please post them now.

There is nothing more to discuss. There is no way this information belongs in this article, and it will be reverted if re-added. RickK 04:34, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not the information belongs, what matters is consensus. Consensus has obviously not been reached (the dicussion was abandoned by Buster), as only Buster has advocated an unconditional non-inclusion of the information. Ke4roh, on the other hand, has advocated a compromise (which entails some sort of inclusion). Others, including yourself and Bkonrad, have given conditional advocation of non-inclusion. However, in both cases your conditions have been met - as has already been stated, Mohmli is not the word for the geographical formation "mesa", but rather the unique word for the City of Mesa; therefore without an additional unconditional endorsement for non-inclusion, neither count either way. Therefore, current consensus is that the information be added back into the article in some shape. Node 20:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been reached and as RickK stated it doesn't belong. --Buster 04:40, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Ke4roh and I have reached a consensus that it should be added back, and your lack of continued participation would seem to indicate that you no longer wish to participate in a discussion for whatever reason.

I do not think that my second condition (and I believe RickK made a similar qualification) has been met: "is that group's use of the term somehow significant to the history of the city." If the term is not connected in a significant way to the history of the city, there is no reason to include it. older≠wiser 21:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It all depends on what you mean by "somehow significant to the history of the city", and that is certainly objective. In addition, this article is titled Mesa, Arizona and not History of Mesa, Arizona, ergo since the translation is definitely significant to Mesa, Arizona (since it is what the indigenous people call it), it should be included without a doubt.

Oh, also, if you think "unless the Pima name predates the city or is somehow otherwise historically significant, it is not relevant to the article", then perhaps you could add your input to the discussion referred to further down by kmccoy.

Also: "Mesa is an American city"... what does that matter to this discussion? Neither Pima nor Spanish nor English are official languages of the United States of America. Perhaps we shouldn't include any names for any cities here at all? Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish cities, but their Arabic names are definitely relevant. Node 22:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand your reasoning. You're basically saying that if there are people living in or near a city who happen to speak a minority language (in that area, at least) and have a different term for the city than the common name then that term should be included in the article? I'm saying that that in itself is not sufficient. For example, Melilla was known as Melilia in Arabic and Mrič in Tamazight BEFORE the Spanish asserted control. The same applies to Ceuta. If you could demonstrate that the Pima called Mesa, or even ANYTHING within a reasonably close distance, as "mohmli" BEFORE European settlement (or even at some relatively early contemporaneous period), then I'd have no problem with including the term. But if the term is merely a created dictionary term to describe the city in another language--it has no more relevance to the article than the translation of that name into any other language. What is the etymology and historical use of the term? You've mentioned a dictionary, but I've seen no evidence forthcoming from it. older≠wiser 00:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, here is why it is relevant: prior to the official incorporation by Anglos, Mesa was actually on the reservation. The settlers in the area got pissed that the government was "givin the damned injuns more than they deserved" (the executive order ESTABLISHING the land as reservation land was actually passed because of the willingness and loyalty of local Native Americans to fight in wars against America's enemies), so eventually another executive order was passed which "shrunk" the reservation into two separate reservations, the present day Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Gila River Indian Community. Even though there were traditional villages located all over the area, these people were forcibly "relocated" to one of the newly-shrunken reservations from what just days before had been recognized by the US government as land belonging to them. Not all of what is now Mesa was located on reservation land, but well over 3/4 was, including the more developed parts of town. It is not a "dictionary term to describe the name in another language". And how would you suggest I provide evidence? It is not an online dictionary. I gave references.

Are we looking for additional votes/input? I would side with older & RickK. --Gary D 06:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on your feelings? I'd appreciate more detailed input rather than just a simple 'no' vote.Node 22:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rationale is pretty much along the lines discussed above and below: The topic is a municipality within the anglo governmental system and an anglo political subdivision, the State of Arizona; the city is dominated by anglos and anglo culture and universally or essentially universally referred to by its anglo name; no particular tie exists between the tribe and this particular city or the land this city sits on (none of the city's land is reservation), and a 1.7% population contribution doesn't significantly affect the balance. I think I have to fall back on the vernacular to express this concisely: It ain't an Indian town. The low probablility of this information being beneficial to that rare reader equally interested in Mesa and native linguistics is swamped out by the high probability of misleading most readers curious only about Mesa that some connection of "first sentence translation" significance exists between the two when in fact it does not. The same rationale applies to Tucson, Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Chandler, etc. By contrast, consider the similar "first sentence translation" that has been done in the Sells, Arizona article; now, I think in "first sentence" form it's a touch PC precious over there, too, but at least there, with the town being the capital of the native nation and the anglo demographics and influence being comparatively minor, it is more likely the translation should be brought with "first sentence" significance to the attention of a significant portion of readers who would be interested in Sells. I note ke4roh above is proposing a form of "in text with explanation" compromise for this article. You might be able to sell something like that. --Gary D 00:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But it borders what is now reservation land and in the past was on reservation land, and before that there were no reservations nor were there anglos on the land.

"[I]t borders what is now reservation land and in the past was on reservation land" would be interesting stuff to include in the article. --Gary D 07:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have still yet to see ANY evidence that the Native American word has EVER been used as a name for the CITY. RickK 22:36, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

That's proof enough for me that you've not been keeping track of this dispute. I provided such evidence earlier, it's not my fault if you skimmed past it. If you still want it, you can find it by scrolling. Again, it is not the "Native American" word, it is the Pima word. That would be similar to saying that "the European word for 'bread' is 'pão'": the Pima and, say, the Cherokee, are at least as linguistically and culturally divergent as are the English and the Chinese. Just because they happen to live on the same landmass hardly warrants the widespread lumping that occurs. "Native American" should only be used on a level similar to that of "Asian" or "European". There is no doubt that there are other languages with individual words for "Mesa, Arizona" (for instance, Yaqui, perhaps Coyotero Apache, Yavapai, Maricopa), yet I highly doubt that any of these are cognate to the Pima word. The reasoning for not including the others is that they were never the primary languages of what is now Mesa.

From the very moment you entered this discussion, you have continued to berate me with questions I have already answered.

Again, I'll ask you (since you DIDN'T answer it before): Why remove relevant information? Node 22:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your condescension is noted and ignored. Now, answer the question. WHERE has the CITY ever been called Mohmli? Give evidence, which you have yet to do. And if you just want to say "See above", then that's proof that you have no evidence, as you have still not given any. RickK 22:45, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Search this page for "saxton" and you will find that I have already given evidence and that your examination of this debate has been less than thorough. As to condescention - what of your original assumption that "mohmli" is the Pima word for a geological formation? That shows that you clearly believe I am too far beneath your level of intelligence to realize that such literal translations of placenames are invalid, whether or not they are in an "official" language. That is condescention.

Name origins and such.

There's also a similar discussion at Talk:Tucson, Arizona, in case people are curious. kmccoy (talk) 05:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, there is not. Mohmli is not the ultimate origin of the English name "Mesa". --Node 11:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay. There's NOT a similar discussion at Talk:Tucson, Arizona. In fact, if you're interested in this and similar topics, don't even think of going to Talk:Tucson, Arizona under any circumstances! :) kmccoy (talk) 15:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Though your response was meant to be humorous, it grossly mischaracterizes my response, which was partially based on the fact that you named the section "name origins and such".

Revert war

Parts of the City of Mesa fall within the current boundaries of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, where Pima (along with Maricopa) is an official language. English isn't an official language of *any* part of Mesa TTBOMK, it is just de-facto. Thus, to take an extremely offensive page from Gary D's book, "it ais an Indian town." --Node 23:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In addition, Abqwildcat, living in Tucson and being a student at U of A, you should have access to http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/books/bid1245.htm at the university library and also through the public library system, in the back there is a list of place-names including Mesa. It might say "mohmli" (not sure if the latest edition uses modern orthography or not), this is the Saxton orthography equivalent of "mo:mli", which is written in the Alvarez-Hale orthography which is the official orthography on all reservations today and which roadsigns are in in the Tohono O'odham Nation. --Node 23:25, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll grant you much more leverage with Mesa, Arizona than with Tucson providing you can show me a map or citation to back up that Mesa falls within the Salt River community. I was under the impression that it would be illegal to build there, and either the community ceded land to the city or the city merely abutted the community's land. I apologize if mistaken, can you point me to a good source which could correct my thinking on this?

Also, I'd have much more support IF Mesa were founded or inhabited by the O'Odham before spanish colonization or anglo settlement. If the settlement moved in on top of the O'Odham settlement, clearly mohmli would describe Mesa perfectly. If, however, anglos or spaniards settled merely nearby, I might be more reluctant to say Mesa is also known as Mohmli. Alternatively, if the nearby settlement (if that's the case) was referred to as mohmli by the O'odham, I'd be more obliged to support an AKA statement. Can you give me some sources (not people you've talked to) which would elucidate the origins of the place name? Thanks. --ABQCat 23:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FACTS based on my own research of secondary sources

1. The InterTribal Council of Arizona page for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community seems to support the assertion that Mesa, Scottsdale, etc. abut the Community's lands. "Consisting of 52,600 acres, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is located 15 miles northeast of Phoenix. It is adjacent to Scottsdale, Tempe, Fountain Hills and Mesa. source"
2. "settled and founded in 1878 by Mormons who used ancient Hohokam canals for irrigation." (source: Encyclopaedia Britannica) - ok, now we know it was founded by Mormons in 1878. The Salt River community was just across the river to the north. It was formally created by presidential mandate in 1879, so Mesa pre-dates the community's formal creation (I assume the community existed in a less-formal, unrecognized form prior to 1879). The Maricopa moved towards Pima villages in 1825, so the villages were there at least that long ago. --ABQCat 00:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My opinion

Those are the facts. Based on them, I think I can support a statement that "The Pima and Maricopa of the nearby Salt River Community call Mesa "Mohmli" in the O'odham language." (alternate othography is fine). That's the limit of my support - they're TWO DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES (emphasis, not shouting) with quite separate histories in 2 different but adjacscent geographical locations. As the nearby Indian Community is undoubtedly locally culturally significant, the inclusion of the name used by the Pima and Maricopa Indians seems important. --ABQCat 00:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Histories will also tell you that Tucson was "settled and founded by the Spanish", but we both know people were living there before them. And the Pima and Maricopa come from Arizona, not India. --Node 00:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quote from the InterTribal community association: "Consisting of 52,600 acres, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community..." - you see that they refer to the community as an "Indian" community, despite that not being the current PC term for the inhabitants of america prior to european arrival. Also look at www.saltriver.pima-maricopa.nsn.us/ - it's the language of the federal mandate creating the community, so is proper usage in this case. --ABQCat 01:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is called the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, but it is inhabited by Native Americans and some white people (spouses), and to my knowledge there are no Indians living there. --Node 02:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the phonebook will tell you the Lehi Community Center is on 1225 E Oak St in Mesa, but having been there literally hundreds of times I can guarantee you it is within the limits of the SRPMIC. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ReferenceMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-tree_id=420&-_MapEvent=&-context=rm&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=&-rm_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=420%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=ref_stat_00dec%7Cdw=0.7035575364576947%7Cdh=0.43950909174966135%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-111.774579%7Ccy=33.509750499999996%7Czl=6%7Cpz=6%7Cbo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319%7Cbl=362:393:358:357:356:355:354%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=381:403:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=25000US3340&-PANEL_ID=rm_result&-_pageY=386&-_lang=en&-geo_id=25000US3340&-_pageX=422&-_mapY=165&-_mapX=250&-_latitude=&-format=&-_pan=&-ds_name=null&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=ZoomIn

All the yellow space there is reservation land, as is the yellowish-pink (the pinkish-purple is not). The yellowish-pink is marked as Phoenix-Mesa UA (Phoenix-Mesa Urban Area), and officially the people on the reservation are counted as Scottsdalians or Mesans. So while at a municipal level it may not be recognised as "part" of Mesa, the land is not incorporated and the census counts the people there as living in Mesa or Scottsdale. --Node 01:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"So while at a municipal level it may not be recognised as "part" of Mesa, the land is not incorporated..." I believe that settles things - the addresses are in Mesa, but it's unincorporated and simply for the purposes of US Mail. The official city borders abut the community borders (it's a big deal that commercialization is limited to a corridor, for example), and while they're part of the urban area, they're no more part of Mesa than Scottsdale is part of Mesa - both are part of the urban area however. Keep in mind I still advocate including the O'odham language name for Mesa as it's culturally significant at a local level. (partially for the reason you give: "the census counts the people there as living in Mesa or Scottsdale", and partially because of the proximity over ~130 years of history.). Re-read my prior entry if you missed that. --ABQCat 01:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, for US Mail, you address things to "SRPMIC" or "Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community" or just "Salt River", although things will also arrive if you give the city as Scottsdale or Mesa. This is the census we're talking about. For the census, residents are counted as Mesans, and as I noted before "Histories will also tell you that Tucson was 'settled and founded by the Spanish', but we both know people were living there before them." --Node 01:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so then the community center is NOT on the SRPMIC but instead in Mesa. You can't have it both ways here. I don't mind noting that SRPMIC residents are counted as part of Mesa for the US Census - the problem I have is that I can bring up US Census results for the Salt River Reservation - so that seems to contradict the fact that they're counted as Mesans. The US Govt doesn't count people twice for the Census. And to the last point, we're not talking about the Spanish or Tucson. We're talking about a Piman/Maricopan area which the Mormon settlers settled in, establishing a town. The US Government then established a reservation/community (not sure which is proper usage as the community and census differ on their designation) a year later which abuts the city of Mesa. If you'd like to back off of your position that it has to simply say "mohmli" without explanation, I think we're fine. A historical and cultural explanation of the current state of affairs seems useful. --ABQCat 02:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can also bring up census data for both Arizona and Tucson, does that mean they counted those people twice? No, because the Tucson data is a subset of the Arizona data.

Originally, the reservation included all of what is now Scottsdale and Mesa. Given the political climate at the time this was of course not popular with settlers, so by presidential order the reservation was split in half (-> Gila River Indian Community + SRPMIC) and made much smaller. This does not mean the O'odham and Piipaash (Maricopa) already living in what is now Mesa and Scottsdale left although certainly some did fearing potential conflict. As late as the 1970s, there were families living in traditional dwellings at the crossroads of Scottsdale Road and Indian Bend Road which is an integral part of Scottsdale and is just north of where I live. I can also testify that there are a couple of vacant lots in Mesa and in Scottsdale with traditional dwellings on them that were apparently only abandoned in the 80s. Some of these people moved to small wooden houses with thin walls, some of which can also be found abandoned on vacant lots in Scottsdale and Mesa, others moved to white neighborhoods nearby, and others moved to the reservation.

--Node 02:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your points here, but it is perhaps worth mentioning as a history section on an article about the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community and Gila River Indian Community? Mesa, Arizona needs to include some of that historical information also, along with the current situation. Again, you've become latched onto semantics and missed that I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the o'odham word for Mesa in the article, with the caveats that I list. In the context of history and culture, it is useful to explain WHY mohmli is a word that can describe Mesa. Afterall, isn't the whole point of wikipedia to educate a person reading the article? I think a section on the history of Mesa from the viewpoint you've shared (including relevant sources, of course) would add greatly to the article. Do you think you can work something up and share it here? --ABQCat 02:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I thought we were discussing was parenthetical inclusion right after the English name, which as far as I knew you were still opposed to.

Unfortunately I don't have any sources nor can I think of anywhere to look for the information I gave - the information about houses is based on my personal experience and things people told me (I don't know for sure that there were traditional dwellings at the crossroads of Indian Bend and Scottsdale Rd., but people who were alive and lived here then say there was), and the information about history is based on... I don't remember where it's from, I think it was something from the people at the Hoohoogam-ki museum in the SRPMIC. See Wikipedia:No original research, thus unfortunately if I cannot find an existing source for the information written by someone other than myself, it's against policy to put it in. --Node 02:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perdy Pictures

Mesa is a beautiful place so there must be no shortage of apt images. They should be added in I think. Ollieplatt 08:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

confusing paragraph

this paragraph in the article:

"The racial makeup of the city is 79.30% White, 3.30% Black or African American, 1.80% Native American, 2.00% Asian, 0.30% Pacific Islander, 12.00% from other races, and 1.30% from two or more races. 20.00% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race."

Adding the first sentence brings the total to 100%. Where does the 20.00% from the second sentence come in?

I haven't verified the source, although from other wiki city articles, the "Hispanic or Latino of any race" is usually accorded it's own place in the inital 100% of a city population makeup. Shouldn't this be corrected?

Actually, it's not. According to the Census Bureau, Hispanic-ity and Latino-ness are not "race", but are instead some sort of obscure cultural concept that is somehow still relevant. Thus, the census asks for your race, and as a *separate* question it asks if you are Hispanic or Latino. In most cases, it's Latinos/Hispanics who make up the majority of the "other races". In most cases, about half of them say they are "white", and about half check "other" and write in something like "latino", "chicano", "hispanic", "mexican", "mexican-american", etc. A smaller portion also typically claims "native american", or a combination of the three (the first time one was allowed to claim more than one race was 2000). Thus, if you're attempting to count a community in terms of WHITE VS LATINO, you need to check the Census website. They have more detailed statistics, including "white (excluding hispanic or latino)", and "hispanic or latino by national origin" or "heritagE" or somesuch, breaking people down into Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cuban-Americans, etc. --Node 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a resident and have been of Mesa, AZ now for 20 years and have observed how incorrect the Census are. The Census for Arizona, especially Mesa are seriously incorrect. Hispanic/Latinos make up 70% of the state and at least 40% of those are illegal and are NOT counted in the Census Bureau.

Baseball teams in Mesa

The Mesa Miners had regrouped but not in another city. But, Mesa has an Arizona Fall League team, the Mesa Solar Sox; and the Arizona League team, the Arizona League Angels in the hot summer months. They play in Hohokam Park on different game schedules. Please add the entries on the article, because they are verifiable. + 207.200.116.135 05:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)