Talk:Appalachian Mountains/Archive 1

The {Geobox|Range box is still wrong !!!
Where to take this? The list of 'Regions' is to long to fit the {Geobox|Range. They are all listed in the source, but not shown on the screen. Tennessee is the lats visible, from North Carolina and down remains hidden. What group/person to go to for fixing?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHvidberg (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Poconos and Catskills
What about the Poconos and Catskills? Rmhermen 17:26, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Geologically speaking, the Poconos and Catskills are not part of the Appalachian Mountains. They are both in the Allegheny Plateau. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

map?
can we have a map with them highlighted? - Omegatron 21:50, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I made one based on the map Image:Appalachian_map.jpg and using the colour scheme from the Rocky Mountains diagram. The info box has latitute and longtitude info:


 * highest_lat_d=39|highest_lat_m=07|highest_lat_s=03.90|highest_lat_NS=N


 * highest_long_d=106|highest_long_m=26|highest_long_s=43.29|highest_long_EW=W

that I didn't know how to update so removed. Someone who knows how to use it should add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanma726 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If people don't like the area I have highlighted, I am happy to update it. --Matt 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In both maps, the boundary of the northern region seems too far to the southeast, extending all the way to the coast. I don't usually think of Rhode Island and Cape Cod as being part of mountainous area. :-) On the other side, it doesn't go far enough to the northwest and northeast. In Canada, aren't the hills of the Gaspé Peninsula part of the Appalachians? (Belle Isle is billed as "the northernmost peak of the Appalachian Mountains", but on a map of this scale stretching that far may be overdoing it.)
 * For the U.S., a highlighted area which overlays the brown/light_green area on http://www.peaklist.org/USmaps/newenglandsummits.gif would do.
 * —wwoods 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, will do.--Matt 17:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another map, that I'd forgotten, showing the main northeast US ranges. (Note that the Adirondacks are generally not included in the Appalachians.)
 * —wwoods 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:NortheastAppalachiansMap.jpg]]


 * Yeah thanks. I found http://www.jamestown-ri.info/appalachian_chain.jpg too. There may need to be some discussion regrading the Canadian Appalachians, I am going to make a poorly-educated guess.--Matt 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

All done --Matt 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland
Weren't the Appalachian Mountains an add-on to the Scottish Highlands? - TALK  ╪  TALK

yep they were when the us and the UK were together!--cheezychicken 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This topic can create confusion. For example, the Appalachian Mountains are uniquely North American.  However, rock outcroppings in Ireland, Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and even parts of Africa seem to match up with the rock formations contained in the Appalachian Mountains.  This is due to the fact that up until about 250 million years ago, all of these were part of the super continent known as Pangea.  For details regarding this can be found on Wikipedia in the follow articles: Geology of the Appalachians, Alleghenian orogeny and Caledonian orogeny.  Tlmclain  | Talk 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to cheezychicken: In earlier edits, I noticed that you attempted to add the phrase also running to the Scottish Highlands and across the top of Norway to the section describing the extent of the Appalachian Mountains. Based upon my comments above, this is not correct.  However, it would be correct to note that portions of the same rock formations found in the Appalachians could be found in other parts of the world.  In my view, such observations would not belong in the article on the Appalachian Mountains, but in Geology of the Appalachians and/or Alleghenian orogeny.   Tlmclain  | Talk 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Mountain Range
I heard a friend tell me that the Appalachian mountians are the oldest in the world, and that they were taller than the Himalayas even at one time. Is this true? The reasoning goes that it's nolonger a fault line, and over the centuries of weather and wear - the mountains have gotten smaller. Any feedback? User:BrianWiese


 * See Geology of the Appalachians: "By about 300 million years ago [...] collision raised the Appalachian-Ouachita chain to lofty, Himalayan-scale ranges." "Taller than the Himalayas" might be a stretch, though doubtless someone, somewhere has made such a claim. – Mwanner | Talk 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Porcupine Mountains in Michigan are 2 billion years old, easily beating the Appalachians in age. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10319-54024--,00.html Phizzy (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps interesting to note, though not part of the Appalachians, the Canadian Shield was once strewn with mountains that are believed to have been of Himalayan height, and some suggest perhaps higher. They existed a very long time ago, though, and so have been weathered down to the vast wilderness of rock, water, and flora that exists there today. --Bentonia School (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And let's not forget the mountains of Iowa. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While the Iowa Mountains were certainly impressive in their day, I don't think they held a candle to the forbidding heights of the Mariana Mountains during the early Calabrian epoch. - Ken Thomas (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Since their glory days, they've both gone downhill. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Source?
The section on history sounds plagiarized to me, and the tone sounds old and somehwat slanted. Also, there are no links in it. Looks like someone cut and pasted from elsewhere.


 * It's 1911 Britanica-- check the Categories. It could certainly use a rewrite. – Mwanner | Talk 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

History or Culture
The Appalachian region has been an important area of American Cutural history. From Blue Grass, or Appalachian Music, "Hillbilly" rural living, the long standing cultural feel of independance and self reliance, to the mild xenophobia of the peoples of the region. I don't know if its important in an article like this, but another article which is linked to discussing everything from the attempted state of Franklin, to important icons of Appalachian history, to the less concrete element of Appalachian culture would be nice.

-- DJ 13 March 2006


 * Never mind, I found the appropriate article under "Appalachia" and made a See Also link at the bottom. A nice allusion to this page, or a small section, in the middle of the article would be nice.  – DJ  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.62.102 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Geology
the geology section says the birth of the appalachian ranges goes back 680 Mya, but a usgs source, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicPast/Places/volcanic_past_appalachians.html, puts it at 480 Mya, as does another wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Appalachians, while yet another, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleghenian_orogeny, cites an even more recent date, 350-300 Mya.

can author cite which event justifies the 680 Mya?

-- james 20 april 2006

Quote " It was not until the region was uplifted during the Cenozoic Era that the distinctive topography of the present formed." End quote. This short statement is misleading at several major geologic understandings. And it should be rated as a wrong statement. The "Cenozoic" uplifting should be at the end of Cenozoic or in Quaternary. And the "uplifting" should not be tectonic in nature, but isostatic. And, the area affected should only be at the north (at the best, central). The modern topography is only partially caused by the uplifting. The origin of current landform goes back to the Paleozoic orogenies. --Juvenis 13:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation Standards
There is no way that æ.pəˈleɪ.ʃən is the standard pronounciation. The "alternate" is almost universally preferred within the mountains. See the discussion on the Appalachia page and other related pages. The comments about it being used by a minority that insists on its correctness seem unprofessional and petty as well, especially considering that it cites no source.

It is actually the the 'standard' pronunciation in the northern range. In the southern range, east or west regardless, no one says it that way. Of course in certain quarters it's assumed that however it's done up north is THE standard, but apart from that bit of jingois bigotry... 69.77.144.110 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a native of Western North Carolina,so I know how to pronounce the name of the mountains I was born in. When I was in Florida for my daughter's graduation from FSU, we visited a couple of restored Indian towns around Tallahassee. One of the guides kept referring to the AppalAYchians....I asked her how to pronounce Appalatchicola, the Appalatchee River, etc, all of which she agreed were named also after the Appalachen Indian village..."Why then" I asked "Would the Mountain range named after the same Indian place be called 'AppalAYchen'???" Of course it's pronounced AppaLATCHian...my wife graduated from AppaLATCHian State University in Boone, NC....not from AppaLAYchen state." Silly Northerners and Foreigners.70.248.132.120 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a northerner. Regardless, AppaLATCHian is indeed the right way to say it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm a "silly" northerner. AppalAYchia is the way we prounce it. Hmmm, who writes the textbooks, encyclopedias, whose dialect is used in tv and radio media? Which dialect is considered standard english? I can understand if the South won the Civil War where you'd get lumping Northerners with foreigners and where you'd then think your dialect was the valid one. But since the south didnt win....Camelbinky (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. Northern cultural imperialism aside, the bulk of the mountain range is in the South, and the people who live there, myself included, pronounce it AppaLATCHian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.159.78 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I say that this talk page's section should be used as a reference on the main article. Hats-off to you, 70.24x.xxx.xxx. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ ( ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ ) 08:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Carpathian Relation?
There seems to be some evidence linking the Appalachians to the Carpathian and Cevennes Mountains of Europe. I've been researching it because I once heard from a geology professor that the Appalachians are only half of the mountain chain in question. Does anyone know of any reliable sources detailing that they're half of a mountain chain that extended through what is now Europe, prior to the Pangea breakup? Also, if reliable sources are known, it might be of interest to people looking up the Appalachians on the wikipedia.

They've been linked fairly solidly to a bit of south america and possibly extending into Antarctica. Apparently where they abruptly stop in north georgia now, a bit was ripped off and ended up down there. See here if you have a subscription, or note the reference and check your library. This is likely what your professor was referring to?

I've heard speculation that mountains in Norway and the British Isles may have at one point been ripped from the northern edge, but nothing authoritative. As to central europe, that doesn't sound plausible at all. 69.77.144.110 16:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

History
The section currently called "Influence on History" is a bit redundant in places and has some awkward wording. I moved a few historical paragraphs from the "Regions" section to the History section, as it made more sense for history to go under History, but I'm afraid it also added to the section's awkwardness. I'll try and clean it up later when I have some more time, unless someone else gets to it first. Pfly 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this the part of the article that "incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain?" Because it sounds like it was written a hundred years ago or, at the very least, by a History professor that has little sense of how to actually write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsilve1 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, this is the "Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - which means that if the writing style doesn't meet your standards, you are not just able to improve it - you are actually encouraged to do so. Since you've indicated your dissatisfaction with this section, I'll look forward to seeing your contributions to address the deficiencies. - Ken Thomas (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And in case you hadn't noticed, that user is a red-link with a grand total of 2 sarcastic "contributions" (including this one) since last September. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rivers and Divides
This section confusese me:

"In spite of the existence of the Great Appalachian Valley, the master streams are transverse to the axis of the system. The height of land of the Appalachians follows a tortuous course which crosses the mountainous belt just north of the New River in Virginia; south of the New River the rivers head in the Blue Ridge, cross the higher Unakas, receive important tributaries from the Great Valley, and traversing the Cumberland Plateau in spreading gorges, escape by way of the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers to the Ohio and Mississippi, and thus to the Gulf of Mexico; in the central section the rivers, rising in or beyond the Valley Ridges, flow through great gorges (water gaps) to the Great Valley, and by south-easterly courses across the Blue Ridge to tidal estuaries penetrating the coastal plain; in the northern section the height of land lies on the inland side of the mountainous belt, the main lines of drainage running from north to south."

The "height of land" links to Water divide, which to me means the same as Eastern Continental Divide, linked earlier. But if "height of land" means the highest mountains, then it isn't going to be the same as the water divide, since the rivers cut through the higher ranges. The paragraph seems to try to describe this, but I'm left confused. I almost edited "..crosses the mountainous belt just north of the New River..." to "..just south of the New River..", since the New River flow north and is on the west side of the divide. But then if we're talking about the highest ranges, then they are north of the New River in Virginia, so I left it as is.

In short, I don't understand what this paragraph is about... ? Pfly 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination failed
I have failed the article and listed it at WP:UGA because the referencing is inadequate to meet GA standards though it seems to be accurate and well written in other respects. Specific claims and facts should be documented with inline citations and each section should have at least one indication of what sources pertain to it. Eluchil404 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Geology - a revolutionary new theory
A revision as of 23:09, 16 November 2006 by 74.106.186.175 added information to the Geology section describing a revolutionary new theory. Because the only reference to the addition appeared to be supported only by a link to a spamdexing/Adsense site, A. B. reverted the edit for legitimate reasons. The new theory intrigued me, so I have done a little research and discovered that it is legitimate. However, rather than reinstating it here, it should probably be added to Geology of the Appalachians and/or Appalachian orogeny, which are the main articles related to detailed discussions of the geology related to the Appalachians. Additionally, the reference should be to something a bit more reliable, like Geologists Find New Origins of Appalachian Mountains. Tlmclain | Talk 18:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding a good link. --A. B. 20:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this the same as what you are refering to? It would make the mountains somewhat younger than what is currently believed.Brian Pearson 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Inaccurate Map of "Appalachia".
I removed the map "Appalachian Region of US.png".

It had a caption "Appalachia", the central and southern Appalachian Mountains of the United States, also including the Allegheny and Cumberland Plateaus.

It showed a large area of the central Appalachian range, including the whole of Western Pennsylvania, part of Ohio, etc.

The primary meaning of "Appalachia" is the traditionally poor mountain area of the South – from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"a term for areas in the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern U.S. that exhibit longterm poverty and distinctive folkways."

This definitely doesn't extend into Pennsylvania.

The other, possible, geographical meaning of "Appalachia" would be the entirety of the mountain range into Canada. Note that this usage is never encountered in non-technical general English usage.
 * I agree. I believe the current map only showing the eastern U.S. part is insufficient Canking 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the definition shown visually on the map, and described in the caption, is too big for the the Southern cultural region, and too small for the possible geographical region. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.62.148 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

flora & fauna
I didn't write the new flora & fauna blurb; it's a post sent to me by an octogenarian appalachian botany expert. He's pleased with the edits undertaken since I posted his text, though he insists that "floras" be kept plural in the place where he'd written it that way. "Floras" is like "peoples" - it is a plural of a flora, which is, in this context, a singular collection of plant species.

Bigfun 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox=
The Infobox cuts off the last regions (they are there but not displayed). Is this a limitation of the template? Silverchemist 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is New Brunswick in this Appalachian Landform Region?
I will like to know if New Brunswick in this Appalachian Landform Region?

Please give me a response before November 15th.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Juglares 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you asking for free help with a student project? --Orlady 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to know who will win the World Series. Please give me a response before October 30th. &#39;Card 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

more Southern Blue Ridge Mountains
I think the southern part of the Blue Ridge Mountains are getting short shift in the description of peaks with only Grandfather mountain and a few neighboring peaks mentioned. The Black Mountains including Mt. Mitchell are actually part of the chain as well. Another patch of mountains are in the southernwestern portion of the Pisgah National Forest between Brevard and Jacksonville, North Carolina. Cold Mountain (um, here, don't know why wiki link isn't working) and a number of other 6000 foot mountains in the Great Balsam Mountains lie in this region. Also this ridge extends into northern South Carolina with what I understand are some of the more impressive (such as they are) vertical climbs in the Eastern US. If one extends the Blue Ridge Mountains to include the Great Smoky Mountains and nearby peaks (which is done in geological maps and on the wikipedia page for the Blue Ridge Mountains, for some reason), then you get virtually all the tall mountains of the southern Appalachians. – KarlHallowell (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Adirondacks
I see that the USGS includes the Adirondack province in the Appalachian Highlands division. Another source referenced here is the Atlas of Canada, but I can't see anything about the Adirondacks on that page. My understanding has been that the Adirondacks are often said to be part of the Appalachians, but almost equally likely to be separated off. The first web source I found that says this clearly is Peakbagger.com. Although this single source isn't enough to counter the USGS, I'm sure there are plenty of other sources, especially geology-related ones, that would say the same. I don't have time to look into it all right now, but perhaps it would be better for this page to point out that the Adirondacks are sometimes included and sometimes not. I'm not sure how best to say that. The current sentence with a citation needed tag is describing the Appalachians in terms of USGS-defined physiographic divisions, provinces, and sections. Maybe that could be pointed out with a mention of other definitions. Actually I was surprised to see the USGS including the Adirondacks. On the other hand, their definition of the "Appalachian Highlands" is quite broad, including the Piedmont. That seems broad beyond common usage. Just some thoughts. Pfly (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another source, a book. Quote from page ix: The Adirondacks are not Appalachian, despite their position smuggled in the corner between New York's plateau country and the Green Mountains. Jumbled and rough, they are a piece of the ancient foundation known as the Canadian Shield, rock more than a billion years old. The mountains themselves, however, were only uplifted within the last 10 or 15 million years – just youngsters compared to their Appalachian neighbors. This from the book: Pfly (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm the one who added that the other day. Yesterday, when I was working on some other pages, I ran across another source that said that as well, but I have no idea which source it was now, so there does seem to be a bit of clarification needed on this. BLM notes the differences in the geology of Adirondacks, but says "similar geologically to the Canadian Shield, but also includes the Tug Hill Upland,which is more similar geologically to the Allegheny Plateau" (which is also part of the Appalachians). So, I think your approach of noting that there are varying definitions is a good one. There clearly are different opinions on where they should reside, but there are also different opinions on what constitutes physiography as well, so possibly one of the definitions places it more in the Appalachians. Physiography is more than purely geological, or even geomorphic, though the most common usage today is probably more closely aligned with the geomorphic usage. I wouldn't however classify PeakBagger.com as a definitive authority on the field either though.


 * Regarding the Piedmont, it seems that it has been included in the Appalachians since at least 1896, when John Wesley Powell wrote it up as such in his The Physiography of the United States: Ten Monographs for the National Geographic Society in 1896. I'm not sure if anybody else categorized them that way earlier or not, but I also haven't seen anything that says they should be part of the Atlantic Plain or another division either (though it could very well exist). This is part of the reason why I started the parent article Physiographic regions of the world, as some of the defined areas I've found may have changed 'official' designations since the maps I compiled it from were first drawn. Trying to find such a list for the entire world is impossible (until now), so hopefully by having such a list, others can see it and correct it or otherwise add to it. As you can see from the list, theres a lot of redlinks and non-linked names still to flesh out define (if they are still accurate names). wbfergus undefinedTalk 11:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi – I've seen that about the Tug Hill Plateau too. It makes a decent example of how it is hard to draw precise boundaries around things are less than 100% black-and-white. Another issue is that regional terms like "Adirondacks" and "Appalachian Mountains" are not used in only a physiographic or geologic sense. There are also ecoregion definitions. For example, the Eastern forest-boreal transition ecoregion include the Adirondacks and parts of the Canadian Shield, but not the Appalachians (click the map on that link to see). My point is that wikipedia's pages on these kind of regions tend to be general, inclusive of physiographic, geologic, ecological, and often cultural ways of defining them. This seems ok to me – it just means that one has to describe the region in different terms and definitions without having a single definition trump the others. Clearly most of these pages could use a lot more citations and overall improvement, but nevertheless I think it would be a mistake to force them to be physiographic by default. If such a page is really needed, I'd suggest making a new page just for it. A key difference can usually be seen in the difference of names. This page, for example, is called "Appalachian Mountains", not "Appalachian Highland Division". That's the main reason why I found it odd to include the Piedmont region – the Piedmont is hardly "mountainous". But I agree that it is usually included with the mountains, physiographically. Sometimes I've seen the Piedmont called the "non-mountainous" part of the Appalachians. In the past I've tried a little to link some of wikipedia's redlinked ecoregions to existing pages (see, for example List of ecoregions, which is similar the Physiographic regions of the world list in having lots of redlinks and some specialized terminology). Quite often the correspondence was poor (see for example the Appalachian-Blue Ridge forests ecoregion, compared to Blue Ridge Mountains). At first I thought I could make the pages fit the ecoregion definition, but it soon became clear that it was better for the pages to remain general and applicable to various fields. And that if there really is a need for a page to be specifically about an ecoregion, it should probably have its own page. The same logic applies, I think, to most physiographic regions. Anyway, all these pages could use a lot of work, so any input is appreciated! I'm just airing some thoughts about how to do it. Pfly (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oop, I see your recent edits basically fit the above proposal I made.. so, um... nice work! :-) Pfly (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I agree pretty much with what you said above, but I also didn't want to be creating a whole slew of stub articles for those 'areas' where there could be various interpretations of the name for 'which' area. So, in other words (and maybe making up a bad example), there wouldn't be something like 5 articles on "Appalachian Mountains", each titled something slightly different (like "(Physiography)", "(Ecoregion)", etc.), when it would be far easier (though maybe not better), to simply have a section or two within an existing article. Overall, it's kind of 6 of one, a half dozen of the other, but sometimes I think it makes the 'one' article better, and it does eleiminate the preponderance of stubs. But, in other cases as well, the 'one' article may be so overly broad or already so big, that maybe a stub would be better. It's really difficult at times trying to make the distinction of which way to go, but for the most part so far, I've been trying to just 'squeeze in' the physiography 'stuff'. There really isn't enough information electronically available for most areas to make a decent standalaone article (in a lot of cases, even a separate section takes a lot of work). There does seem to be a whole bunch of information available in pay-per-view articles and other similar publications, but I don't have that kind of money. We (USGS) have tons of publications in the library down the hall where I work at, but I don't have the time to spend there researching it all either. When I'm there, I'm almost always doing database or other computer-realted work. Maybe someday some college students will get on here, see the info and start adding to it so it can be a standalone article, but I don't have the time or money to try and do it myself. I am open to suggestions though on how to adapt the physiography 'stuff' into existing articles without confusing the main article that much.    :^)      wbfergus undefinedTalk 14:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox- Quebec?
Sorry if this is fine as is, but it seems a little strange that you mention the mountains being in Canada, and then say New Brunswick. First, the map looks like the Mountains are only in a tiny bit of Canada. Second, it looks like the Mountains go through the southeastern part of Quebec as well. Maybe remove "Canada" and add "Quebec" in its place? 71.207.10.23 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Didn't see "Countries" in the infobox XD

Still, is the tiny part of Quebec that the mountains are in enough to put it in the infobox? 71.207.10.23 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bluefield?
What's up with the "Bluefield" reference in the shaded relief map. Seems pretty obscure. I'm thinking the image should be removed. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The map seems like a good illustration of the landform difference between the sinuous Valley-and-Ridge Mountains and the dissected Appalachian Plateau. In fact, the map's info page (click on it) says pretty much this, plus more about faults, etc. I see now that the caption doesn't say much. Perhaps if the caption described the landform differences shown better? Bluefield refers, I think, to Bluefield, Virginia, to provide locational info. That could be explained in the caption too. Also of note in the image is Burke's Garden, Virginia – that distinct oval valley in the middle. Anyway, does this make sense? Enough reason to keep it with a better caption write-up? Pfly (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation (2)
Could someone adapt/correct the indicated pronunciation? (Sorry, I'm not good enough at IPA standard.) At least Merriam-Webster says that several pronunciations are correct: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Appalachian%20Mountains. I've read at least of two correct pronunciations in another source, too (so it doesn't seem to be just M-W). Consequently, claiming that there is just one correct pronunciation is not a neutral point of view and/or simply inaccurate (take your pick). I'm all for adding where which pronunciation is used (and then those who feel it's a worthy cause can get all worked up about inferior pronunciations being used in inferior areas etc.), but either way, Wikipedia should contain the accurate information that several pronunciations exist and are correct. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation in the article is the "more standard" one while the locals of the Southern portion of the mountains use a pronunciation with a "short a" vowel sound for the the third a in the name. Rmhermen (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just the "southern locals" who say app-a-LATCH-an. Greg Fishel, the weather guy on WRAL-TV says it that way - and he's from Pennsylvania. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify (again): It's interesting who says what. But it's more important that Wikipedia portrays the basic information (what is said, not who says it) accurately. So the additional pronunciations should be added unless someone can provide evidence that Merriam-Webster is incorrect in writing that they are correct pronunciations and/or evidence that they are uncommon (i.e. rare, not just "less common"). Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see 3 pronunciations given in that Webster link, so assuming we consider Webster a reliable source, they could all be in the article. P.S. Despite what Webster says, I've never heard any northerner say ap-a-lay-che-un. It's more like ap-a-lay-chun. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've added a source (the David Walls article in the Encyclopedia of Appalachia) that states that both pronunciations are correct and both are widely used. Bms4880 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As a southerner myself, I object to the rigid assignment of pronunciations to northern and southern dialects. I never heard anybody say appaLATCHians until I moved north 25 years ago. I and everybody I knew growing up said it just as Baseball Bugs says northerners say it. I'm going to relax the way that paragraph is worded to allow for the obvious fact that there is a lot of regional variation in how the word is pronounced. It's patently incorrect to say that southern dialects say it this way and northern dialects say it that way. I haven't read the referenced source, but if that's really what it says, then it's just wrong, and there's no reason to reproduce the error here. It's sufficient to record the various pronunciations without assigning them rigidly to any particular geographical regions.--Jim10701 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In North Carolina, at least, it's appaLATCHians consistently, ranging from the name of the university called Appalachian State to the way TV announcers say it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New River
The New River does not rise east of the Appalachians in central North Carolina by any stretch of geography. Both the South and North Forks of the New arise in the northwestern part of the state well within the mountains themselves. The headwaters of the South Fork are just outside of Blowing Rock, and those of the North Fork are northwest of there on Elk Knob in the northern part of Watauga County. They both then flow through Ashe County, the northwestern-most county of North Carolina, where they converge just south of the Virginia line.

And, incidentally, I wouldn't say that Grandfather Mountain is near the NC-Virginia line, unless 36 miles is considered "near." It is that far due south of Damascus, Virginia. APace361 —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Cenozoic uplift?
I wonder about the statement that uplift of the Appalachians occurred during the Cenozoic. A USGS page (http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/province/appalach.html) says "By the end of the Mesozoic Era, the Appalachian Mountains had been eroded to an almost flat plain. It was not until the region was uplifted during the Cenozoic Era that the distinctive topography of the present formed." This seems identical to the text of the current Wikipedia article and also shows up verbatim in other sites dealing with the same issue. I wish the USGS article cited evidence for this statement, other than the photo of a crosscutting stream. The only primary source I can find (http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006SE/finalprogram/abstract_101956.htm), while intriguing, certainly doesn't seem definitive:


 * "If the sediment trap strata are part of a regional cover that was once continuous across the southern Appalachian Mountains, then the uplift of the present-day southern Appalachians must post-date the youngest palynological age (middle Eocene). Applying minimal published erosion rates (3 m/m.y.) for the Appalachian Mountains, these deposits would have been completely eroded during the last 33 m.y. given their present thickness (< 100 m). Therefore, the fact that they exist at all indicates that: (1) they were once covered by a much thicker sedimentary cover, and(or) (2) their uplift, along with that of the Appalachians, must be considerably more recent than Eocene. This new evidence suggests the intriguing possibility that the Appalachians are not Paleozoic mountains, but rather late Cenozoic mountains comprised of Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks."

Is there general sentiment and evidence that the Appalachians are the product of widespread Cenozoic uplift and not differential erosion of older orogeny?

James xx45933 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Jim - 19 July 2010


 * It's both. I'd suggest reading the Geology of the Appalachians article. Also Grenville Orogeny, Taconic Orogeny, Appalachian Orogeny. The structures are the result of older orogeny, the current elevation due to recent uplift. --Bardobro (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede needs work... any suggestions?
Hey all, I've been reading and re-reading the lede, and I think it could use a decent amount of work. Here's it's current state:
 * The Appalachian Mountains ( ˌæpəˈleɪʃɨn (help·info) or /ˌæpəˈlætʃɨn/), often called the Appalachians, are a vast system of mountains in eastern North America. The Appalachians are believed to have been the highest mountains on earth roughly 466 million years ago during the Ordovician Period, much like (but higher than) theHimalayas today, when all of today's continents were joined as the supercontinentPangaea. The Appalachian chain is a barrier to east-west travel as it forms a series ofalternating ridgelines and valleys oriented to oppose any road running east-west.


 * I think vast should be removed. Too POV sounding, and not very accurate in comparison to... well... other mountain ranges.
 * I think the second sentence ("...the highest...") is kind of ambiguous or hard to follow without effort. Perhaps rewording or splitting the premise into two sentences?
 * I think the final sentence needs rewording, as it currently is written in a method indicating an active/passive action of opposition. In truth, I suspect the mountain range actually does nothing but sit there, and we simply do not wish to expend enough for more E-W roads. Something more along the lines of "because of the alternating ridgelines... it makes the creation of east-west travel routes and roadways a difficult task" (in better wording, but along those lines).

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Anyone for or against any of them? R OBERT M FROM LI TALK/CNTRB 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In the first sentence, "...are a mountain range in eastern North America" will suffice. The second sentence, and most of the third, should be placed in the Geology section, not the lede.  The lede will need to be expanded to about three paragraphs.  The first should give a general idea of the range's location, the second perhaps some *very* basic geological information, and the third might mention its role in human history.  Bms4880 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced "impact on history"
That impact on history section is long and completely devoid of sources. I'm suspicious of paragraph of it in particular which claims that the mountains confined settlers to the region by the ocean and thus somehow helped build up the colonies. I don't think that people in a remote part of the world in the 1700s or before needed any great excuse to live near navigable waterways. And it's not like the Appalachians are uninhabitable - they're just more remote than the beach. So I think this paragraph, and perhaps the others, makes a great deal out of very little. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears the first three paragraphs of this section were plagiarized from this (beginning where it says "Influence on History"). I guess it's not a copyvio, since the work was copied from a Google Book that appears to be in the public domain, but it's poor taste, nonetheless.  Bms4880 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Proclamation of 1763 comes to mind as an obvious example of the historical "barrier" function of the Appalachians, and is in fact mentioned by name in the section in question. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the proclamation would come up with some barrier or other between the English and French, no matter how minor or artificial. It doesn't really say much about the mountain.  At the same time, well... at least it is sourced. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

International Appalachian Trail
Greetings,

Geologically, the Scottish highlands are part of the Appalachians...they were formed at the same time from the same collision...

http://www.internationalat.org/Pages/SIAIAT_News/01170675-001D0211

only becoming separated about 65 million years ago. Now there is talk of extending the Appalachian Trail to Scotland. Ryoung 122 18:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of Appalachians
300 miles is too short; looking around for possible sources, I'm seeing numbers around 1500 miles for the generally accepted definition (ignoring the Appalachian Trail, which is a little over 2000 miles). TEDickey (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at older versions, the 100-300 miles referred to the width of the range, not the length. I've restored an earlier form of the sentence that makes this clear. I'm keeping the "discuss" tag up, though, as I'm not sure that 1500 miles is the right length either, especially if the range is considered to extend to Newfoundland. Tdslk (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Drainage
"Because the Appalachian Mountains are such an ancient mountain range, there exists at least one river that flows across it." - this is really a Informal_logical_fallacy. This implies that any ancient mountain range would have at least one river that flows across it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.198.11 (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Name
Is the word Appalachia Spanish or from the local Red Race tribe? If words such as avocado are Red Race (Native American) then so is Appalachia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.155.114 (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you are asking. The article states that the word/name was from the local tribe and the Spanish transcribed it as Apalchen or Apalachen. It wasn't originally a Spanish word. Is there something you think should be changed? -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The word Appalachian is formed by the combination of two Sanskrit words followed by the suffix '-ian'. -ian. 'Apara' means the west.( as opposed to the word Poorva which  is the East.).’ Isa’ means the Lord or the supreme God ( who is also called Lord Shiva in the Hindu religion)..[ Apara +   Isa/ =  Apare:Sa/ /Aparesha  ( अपर+  ईश = अपरेश ) The abode of Lord Shiva is on Mount Kailas in the Himalayas. Perhaps the continent Asia is so called because it is the Land of Isa. It is said in the first stanza of the ‘ Isavasyopanishad.’ that the entire universe belongs to’ Isovas’ ( some other interpretation is that the entire universe has evolved from the mouth of Lord Isa). As such the meaning of the word ‘Appalachian mountains ‘means – the western mountains of Lord Isa/Shiva (the western abode of Lord Isa). This means that the native people who originally came to these mountains were the devotees of Lord Shiva. In Hindu religion Lord Shiva is described as a naked God ( digambara) who smears ash all over his body, and  His  Phallus( Shiva-linga) is  worshiped by devout Hindus all over India. The people who lived around these mountains and who are called Appalachians are evidently from the North-West frontier of India-,who lived at the source of the river Indus ( The Phaktoons the Beluchees,,Afgans,the Persians and Mongols etc.). The name Appalachians seems to have been shortened to Apaches and perhaps they were also called Injuns, which means that they are Indians. In Hindu mythology they are called Suparnas / Garudas or Salabhas/ Sarabhas, who lived among the Himalayan birds and could fly by attaching wings and a tail, and also by wearing the mask of a bird. According to Hindu mythology the bird people and the snake people were the children of the two wives of the same sage, but they behaved like born enemies (Wikipedia-Garuda, Suparna, Salabha, Sarabha) They followed each other throughout the world and tried to enslave each other. Indian History says that-even Lord Buddha tried to unite these two warring tribes but without much success. The bird people love birds and feathers and their totem is a bird standing on a tall pole, watching the surroundings. Their chief wears a crown of feathers.They call themselves Aryans. So the words starting with the letters-‘ Ar,Ari  etc, are the Aryan  words. ( eg. Arizona ,Oregon ,Argentina etc. 117.195.241.178 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Bksatyanarayana
 * This has nothing to do with the name under discussion here. Rmhermen (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:FRINGE. Bms4880 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the lord Peter Tosh said "Don't care where you come from, as long as you're a black man, you're an African. No mind your nationality, you have got the identity of an African". As for the link with the Apache people, their home was some thousands of kilometres from the Appalachians. I think you are drawing a rather long bow here.    Djapa Owen (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are Sutton Mountains?
Mont_Sutton (better described in the french version) is "often considered as part of the green mountains", yet in this whole article, the appalachian mountain range is described as barely touching quebec. Having spent my childhood hiking in those mountains, I found this rather shoking - I have always been under the impression that Sutton, Orford, Brome and basically everything west of Rougemont mountain was part of the appalachian mountain range, and even those - only the Monteregian_Hills article made me doubt that. Shouldn't this be accounted for? -- TheAnarcat (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article discusses a couple mountain ranges in Quebec as parts of the Appalachians. Are these mountains you list not part of one of those ranges? Rmhermen (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't say the Appalachians "barely touch Quebec". The ranges in Quebec are mentioned several times. Maybe you're referring to the map? It doesn't seem quite accurate for the Green Mountains and Quebec and could be improved. From what I can tell Monts Sutton are considered part of the Green Mountains, although our Green Mountains page doesn't say anything about Quebec. That ought to be addressed—the page is very Vermont-centric. Quebec's geographic names database describes Monts Sutton as a range within the Green Mountains, . Mont Sutton is listed as a ski resort but not a peak itself. Canadian Geographical Names doesn't list either Mont Sutton or Monts Sutton, but Canadian topo maps show "Monts Sutton" as a range . Peakbagger isn't a reliable source (they sometimes make things up), but for what it's worth they put the Monts Sutton peaks in what they call the "Canadian Green Mountains", . With a bit of research better sources could be found on the topic, I would think. Pfly (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Planned Edits
Hi there! I am a student at Ohio University and I am currently taking a writing course that deals with writing in and editing Wikipedia articles. I am planning on doing some edits on this article. I am planning on creating a list of subranges of Appalachian Mountains as well as working on some of the existing information. I plan on working on this article in my sandbox. I am open to suggestions, comments, questions, or advice. Thanks! ZackaryMullikin (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment
I was appalled to see that this is only a C-class article, formerly a GA candidate. Looking in the history, I see it was downgraded in 2010 without much controversy and its status has remained unchanged. Since that time, some 908 changes have been made to the article. I think it is time to reconsider it for a reassessment and a peer review, because in my mind this is not a C-class article. What-all is missing from the article that makes it worthy of only a C that isn't better placed on Appalachia and other connected articles (e.g. Geology of the Appalachians etc.)? Presently, all I can think of is: -  Sweet Nightmares  20:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Appalachian_map.jpg is misleading since it implies that the Appalachians are limited to the USGS's geological sections
 * the map appears to be kind of haphazard, and possibly even WP:OR; surely there exists an XML on the USGS website that contains its real boundaries?
 * more text added about the northern Appalachians, esp. the Sutton mountain range
 * Others...?


 * In addition, the lede probably needs to be overhauled, and at least a third paragraph added. Bms4880 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have changed the map for now, but this is still not preferable since it
 * has text on it
 * doesn't include the Canadian Appalachians
 * focuses on the valley rather than its mountains
 * 2 more bullets to add to the list:
 * The history section needs LOTS of references and should talk about the Cumberland Gap/Daniel Boone more... honestly the history of the Appalachians is so great it probably should have its own article :/
 * The section on "drainage" should be expanded with info on the Great Appalachian Valley and what-all happened during glaciation.
 * -  Sweet Nightmares  22:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is lots of useful information to incorporate from here (Northern Arizona University). -  Sweet Nightmares  18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting tidbit from Ohio U. -  Sweet Nightmares  18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

weak sourcing for Wachesa Trail
Recent edits use a weakly-sourced Wikipedia topic as the source to support the contention that Wachesa Trail was a well-known, much-used route to the west. All that the reader can glean from the linked topic is that the trail was known, but not widely. The effect is apparent regional promotion, lacking further sources TEDickey (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is poorly sourced, as the passage isn't well covered, yet, by Wikipedia. It is of historical, but mostly forgotten importance, and was recently named as an National Millennium Flagship trail, named as the Unicoi Turnpike Trail. Sadly, it hasn't yet even received an article as such. It was known during the colonization of western Carolina, and played a role in the French-Indian wars, and the Revolutionay War.I will try to add better sources as time permits. User:Interstellarsurfer 13:15, 20 September (UTC)


 * This trail should be removed. The sentence mentions three major access points through the range.  There were dozens of trails like this one, and mentioning it as though it had an importance similar to the Cumberland Gap or Mohawk Valley gives it undue weight.  Bms4880 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of the trail pre-dates the discovery of the Cumberland Gap, and was the only passage through the southern Appalachians. It was in use by colonials concurrently with the Mohawk Valley, and played a similar role in the French-Indian war. It was even defended by Ft. Loudoun on it's eastern terminus, as Mohawk was defended by Ft. Oswego. The route was successfully defended by the Cherokee against the French and their indian allies, so it isn't quite as interesting as the Mohawk Valley, which was hotly contested by the French, British, and their indian allies.

As for my sourcing, I've occasionally tried to find online scanned-archives of the old history books, but I've not had much luck. This deserves more attention. I may have to go to a few local libraries, and blow the dust off of some century old books to find the primary sources. Just because it's not well documented on the internet, doesn't mean it is unimportant - and that's exactly why I'm trying to help. Interstellarsurfer (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just note that adequate sourcing is a critical factor for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. We're not saying it's unimportant, we're saying its importance needs to be well-documented, preferably in secondary source literature.  I'm not finding anything.  It's easy to find sources for Cumberland Gap or Mohawk Valley.  Bms4880 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Appalachian Mountains. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311034415/http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca:80/mindep/synth_prov/appalachian/index_e.php to http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/mindep/synth_prov/appalachian/index_e.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Appalachian Origin Dispute: Devonian or Ordovician?
According to the Read section here the Appalachians were created in the early Ordovician (488-443 MYA), but the authoritative World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2009 edition, clearly states that the mountains were created in the Devonian period (416-359 MYA), about 70 million years later "collisions between Gondawanaland and ancestral landmasses of N America and Eurasia produce mountains visible today as northern Appalachians". Somebody is wrong here. Which one is it? Young minds are at stake. Caveat lector. I'm sticking with received wisdom. Goodbye. Raylopez99 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appalachian Mountains. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117093921/http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Mtleconte/website/geology.html?etoc to http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Mtleconte/website/geology.html?etoc

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Northern extent?
An editor wrote to Wikimedia,2017083010008916 making the observation that the Appalacian Mountains, while stretching to Canada, reach to New Brunswick, but not to Labrador.

I looked briefly at the references provided, one of which appears to be a dead link, but did not find support for the notion that the mountains reached to Labrador.

Would someone be willing to look into this and make corrections if necessary or make sure it's supported by a reliable source?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appalachian Mountains. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508092535/http://www.appalachiancenter.org/ to http://www.appalachiancenter.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Table of highest mountain peaks
An article like this one ought to contain a simple table of the highest mountain peaks in the range, starting with the highest one Mount Mitchell, and containing five to ten peaks. Furthermore, the highest peak in West Virginia is Spruce Knob, which is measurably higher than Bald Knob. Also in the Appalachian Mountains are the highest peaks of Alabama Cheaha Mountain, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee Clingmans Dome, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, QUEBEC, and Newfoundland. It would be nice to mention all of these.47.215.180.7 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Railroad lines
In the North the Eastern Continental Divide in higher the West, in the South it's generally higher in East.

Missing:
 * Cumberland Gap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopiersperre (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

common forest animals vs unconfirmed sighting
A single blog-style entry doesn't provide a reliable source for a statement about common forest animals (the whole section is poorly sourced, but the source here states that there are unconfirmed sightings and goes on to speculate at length) TEDickey (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , for the record. the reference added today is a newspaper local to the region. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC) —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Everyone knows that. Apparently not everyone knows what the word "common" means, nor "unconfirmed". Time to do a little reading, perhaps TEDickey (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , that may be. your words above are blog style. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , You are correct about common. i will look fir another place to land the god faith edit attempt by the anonymous editor that began this conversation. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What states are considered Appalachian
Contrary to popular belief the Carolinas are not Appalachian. 71.29.179.186 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The Appalachian Mountains include the western end of North Carolina, including Mount Mitchell (the highest peak in the range) and Asheville (at 2,134 ft. of elevation). Acwilson9 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation (continuation of archived Talk section "Pronunciation Standards")
It would be nice to add where the geographic border between the two pronunciations - AppaLATCHian and AppalAYchian - is located. I wonder whether it is at about the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland-West Virginia. (My own web search did not not turn up an answer. My cousin, who has lived most of his life in the State College, PA, area, does not know.) Acwilson9 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)