The Beverly Hillbillies were supposed to be from Arkansas, which is not part of Appalachia and thus, technically at least, were not a portrayal of Appalachians in the media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.212.15.171 ( talk • contribs) 15:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

To correct an error, the term "Appalachia" is not a Cherokee word, nor does it have any relation to Cherokee. Cherokee does not have bilabial sounds ([p], [b], etc.), a trait that makes its sound rather distinctive. The term supposedly comes from the name of a tribe historically located in northern Florida, the Apalachee, whom de Soto encountered. The Apalachee spoke a Muskogean language, totally unrelated to Cherokee, which is Iroquoian. Keldan 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

this article prepetuates the myth that Appalachia is isolated. it never was any more isolated than any other area in the US. This article undermines the attempts to dispel stereotypes about the region. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poteete ( talk • contribs) 16:22, February 23, 2006 (UTC)

Mountainous areas are relatively isolated in any part of the world, when compared to places more easily travelled to by land or ship. There are indeed many people living deep in the "hollers" of Appalachia who (perhaps by choice) remain relatively isolated today -- MrGears 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

While there are remote mountainous areas in Appalachia, a key feature of the region is its great valleys, which since colonial times have served as major transportation and migration routes. One could practically define Appalachia as centered on the Great Valley. Even the more rugged mountains are not very isolated today. Great Smoky National Park, where the highest mountains are, is the most visited national park in the nation. The big cities that surround Appalachia today, especially Atlanta, Knoxville, and the giant sprawl of the Carolina Piedmont, make up one of the nation's fastest growing and urbanizing regions. In short, I agree that mountains can make a region more isolated, but so can many other things, like peninsulas, deserts, islands, and even economic stagnation. Appalachia lies between the cores of the Atlantic seaboard and the rest of the nation. It has always been a crossroads as well as a major source of natural reources. Bits and it here and there may be backwaters, but in general Appalachia is not isolated, but rather integral to the nation, both culturally and historically.. on par with, for example, The Midwest. Pfly 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

It's areas farther north like eastern Kentucky and much of West Virginia that are best known for isolation, and for sending poor migrants north to cities like Detroit. I think this is the region that is most thought of as "Appalachia". -- JWB 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

In Tennessee, Kentucky and North Carolina, small mountainous towns with railroads were not totally isolated. Most other mountainous areas in these states were very isolated until after World War II. Without a railroad, a small community might only be accessible via wagon (or even just horseback) with a ride just to the county seat taking a full day. Even in the second half of the twentieth century, once roads were built, they were winding, two-lane affairs; a ride to the county seat might still take more than an hour.

When more connections were built to the outside world, poverty tended to keep people focused on their local area. Skills acquired over a lifetime working in mines or tending the land (often in adverse terrain) were less and less useful elsewhere for those that did leave their communities. Weak local educational systems did not prepare students well for a broader U.S. economy in which the best opportunites required advanced education. As a result, many that left the area for jobs elsewhere did not prosper and this fact was not lost on those who stayed behind.

All of this had the effect of allowing a set of distinct cultural traits to perpetuate for longer than in most other U.S. regions.-- A. B. 13:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Isolation also contributed to the popularity of "moonshining"; without passable roads, whiskey-making afforded a way to condense bulky, low-value crops into small, high-value loads that could be transported by mule or horse over narrow trails. -- A. B. 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There are still extremely isolated areas in the southern Appalachians, which preserve much of the distinctive culture. -- Vultur

Someone added "Half-breed Melungeons love a powerful pill called Oxycontin. Most sociologists regard the people of Appalchia as the dirtiest and lowiest form of human." to the culture section of the aricle. This purely unfounded and discriminatory and an attempt by the individual to perpetuate a stereotype. Unfourtunately, some sort of bot seems to be perventing me from reverting the vandalism. I hope an administrator takes care of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.64.39 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 8 November 2006

This is a horrible article and if I was qualified to do the massive edits it needs, I'd certainly do so. I would encourage someone to scrap much of this and start anew. Whoever wrote most of this article must have gone through the appalachian educational system... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.66.3 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 November 2006

Furthermore, the article does not exemplify, or meet the professional, businesslike manner of traditional Wikipedian style of writing. It is, in essence, poorly, and awkwardly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.147.242 ( talk) 01:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Poverty Section is Inaccurate and Demeaning

The section on poverty in Appalachia seems to report conditions in the 1960's without reference to the tremendous progress seen in the past 50 years. The article seems to imply that the majority of Appalachians are poor. In 2009 extreme Appalachian poverty on a community level is limited to a few counties along the Big Sandy River, near the border of Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia. 69.19.14.23 ( talk) 21:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Re-worded. Bms4880 ( talk) 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Why does the intro paragraph state that appalachia stretches to Maine if the picture contradicts this assertion? -- MrGears 14:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I noticed that too. Apparently the picture shows Appalachia as defined by the Appalachian Regional Commission. I'll change the caption to show that. -- Allen 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The map of Appalachia is incorrect as it neglects to include the northeastern portion of Alabama which is the southern most part of the region. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.198.120.67 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, November 23, 2005 (UTC)

Some editors of this article seem determined to maintain that Appalachia ends at the Alabama state line. This mystifies me, because nothing could be further from the truth. I think the map on the main page should revert to the region as defined by the ARC. The anonymous user at 155.84.57.253, in changing from the ARC-defined region map to the current one, provided this explanation on the history page: "the commission only defines the area under its jurisdiction, it does not define the boundaries of the region." Well, then who defines the boundaries of the region? I don't know the answer to that either, but I do know that I'm sitting in Appalachia right now, and I'm sitting in Alabama. Jax42 04:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

One reason the ARC's backers defined the region so broadly was to obtain political support for the ARC's formation and its subsequent initiatives. 13 states = 26 Senators automatically prepared to support the ARC and bring home some "pork".

Also, it's worth noting that there's a difference in geographical scope between the region thought of as Appalachia and the Appalachian mountain range. The actual range extend beyond Maine into Maritime Canada (as a series of low hills and mountains). However, even in the Catskills of New York, accents, religious beliefs, etc. have always been substantially different from those found further south.-- A. B. 13:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

According to several of the books I have on Appalachia, the very concept of Appalachia as a region began during and after the Civil War. According to Richard B. Drake, the first attempt to define Appalachia geographically was done in 1861 in a series of articles in a Minnesota newspaper, which in this early phase of the Civil War tried to identify pro-Union regions within the mountainous region of the Confederacy. The editor called the region "Alleghenia", as was still the common name for the mountains back then. A revealing phrase used was that large parts of the southern mountains are a "land of Corn and Cattle, not Cotton". Other writers during and after the Civil War looked to the southern part of the mountains as distinctive not only for its difference in economy from the lowland South, but for its Civil War loyalties.

This, I suspect, may be a factor in why Appalachia is typically seen as the southern part of the Appalachian Mountains. Further, the distinctiveness of Appalachia, in the South, was only increased after the Civil War, which devastated the once-productive region. Pfly 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Some of this is historical myth. The most mountainous regions of West Virginia, extending up to central WV as far north as Gilmer Co., voted to secede from the Union along with the rest of Virginia. A lot of this myth of the Unionist mountaineers can be attributed to the work of Berea College and Lincoln Memorial University. See the essay by Shannon H. Wilson "Lincoln's Sons and Daughters: Berea College, Lincoln Memorial University, and the Myth of Unionist Appalachia, 1866-1910", in "The Civil War in Appalachia", ed. by Kenneth Noe & Shannon Wilson, Univ. of Tennessee Press, 1997. Dubyavee ( talk) 05:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Could we get the pronunciation, and the variations of such, in plain text as well? My computer can't read the phonetic characters and besides that, I'm sure a lot of people (myself included) can't interpret them correctly anyway. -- 70.30.77.176 06:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I have trouble interpreting those too, so I made an attempt at adding more layman-friendly pronunciations. But I know there are rules even for writing such plain-English pronunciations and I'm probably not following them, so if anyone knows them feel free to fix my edits. Also, I'm removing the text saying where people use which pronunciation. My experience has always been that it's not an inside-outside thing, but a north-south thing, with people north of Maryland saying apple-LAY-sha and people south of Maryland saying apple-LATCH-a, and people in Maryland being divided. -- Allen 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Someone changed it back to the inside-outside things. Does anyone have a reference for this? -- Allen 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I've reinstated my change after hearing no response here. To reiterate, I challenge, based on personal experience, the accuracy of whether the two pronunciations correspond to insiders vs. outsiders, so I'm requesting a source from anyone who wants the insider-outsider info back in. My personal experience/opinion isn't a valid reference to back up information, but my understanding of WP:V is that my opinion is enough to remove unsourced information. -- Allen 01:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No reference, but when I moved to the region, I was often told to "say it right, or I'll throw an "apple atcha." In that area at least, "apple LAY cha" was the sure sign of an outsider.-- Oddmountain

The third syllable should NOT be pronounced "lay." Appalachia was derived from the language of the Apalachee tribe, which did NOT include a long vowel sound for the letter "A" [1]. Citing this reference I move to declare the "app-a-lay-chia" pronunciation quite simply incorrect.-- 220.120.134.189 ( talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As for the inside/outside bit, I don't know how to resolve it, but I agree with Oddmountain in that there are definitely two distinct pronunciations. I grew up in southeastern Kentucky and always heard it as "apple-atcha". I never heard "ap-uh-lay-shuh" until I moved away. As for the pronunciation guide, it is a bit difficult to make out. An untrained eye (mine) can't really find a difference. Is there something that can be done as suggested at the very beginning of this discussion? Am editing myself to add this. I just ran across this on another website. How to Pronounce Appalachia MariAdkins

Two topics I would like to see added in realtion to this topic. If anyone's a better writer than I please help out!

Jack Tales

Foxfire book series

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.232.123 ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 April 2006

I like the inclusion of a map. Last time I saw this article there was no map. 205.174.22.28 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC) The map is incorrect though... reply

I fixed the new "See also" link to Ozark culture and then thought about it some more. People outside Appalachia get so confused anyway about this area already -- would linking to the Ozarks article without comment further confuse things? There are similarities between the two areas, but perhaps it might make more sense to say it in a sentence along with some disclaimer like "... while similar in many ways, the two areas are almost 500 miles apart ...". Your thoughts?-- A. B. 00:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The phrase "(for political reasons)" was added to the article's opening paragraph:

"Although parts of the Appalachian Mountains extend through Maine into Canada, New England is usually excluded from the definition of the Appalachian region (for political reasons)."

Perhaps it would sound better to say "for historical reasons" rather than "for political reasons". Pfly 09:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the reasons actually are more cultural and economic:

• Politically, the mountainous parts of New England were Republican -- a party affiliation chunks of Southern Appalachia shared. Many other portions were solidly Democratic, but political differences were probably weaker than other differences. This political convergence was largely a result of the Civil War, when previously Democratic, pro-Union Southerners shifted to the Republican Party.
• Economically, manufacturing caught on in New England in the 1800s, bringing a measure of prosperity to the area.
• Historically, New England was largely settled by a different group of people from the British Isles (see Kevin Phillips book, the Cousins' War -- ISBN: 0465013708) with different outlooks on life
• Rural New England, with the exception of some parts of Maine, was not as cut off from the outside world, as so much of Appalachia was until the 20th century.
• Coal was a major factor in people's lives in about half of Appalachia. There's never been much coal mining north of Pennsylvania.
• New England educational standards were higher.

I could go on, but these are a few of the reasons why I think the differences are about much more than politics.-- A. B. 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know about that. I'm a transplanted northern Rhode Islander in Arizona with a Conservative background (English Catholics, like Maryland) and Kentuckian/West Virginian/Virginian ancestors, but the native religious consensus in both seemingly disparate regions is Baptist (recall Roger Williams (theologian)). Now as I understand it, these two regions actually were somewhat politically related during American Whig Party times and Rhode Island fielded Democratic governors while the Civil War was raging--a true sign of sympathy. There are textile manufacturing relations between the two, built on cotton. I don't know how to pretend like my life is a lie. I was one of the hicks in school (I chased my farmer neighbors' geese and rode their horses when they weren't around), both grandparents' families watching John Wayne, Gone With the Wind, NASCAR and listening mostly to bluegrass, country and western or southern rock. I come from a military family, with some truckers too. There is not one time in my life in which I enjoyed the city, except maybe Irish pubs. Who is going to tell me that my momma's downhome cooking ain't Southern either? I am of the regional New England minority who votes Republican and am satisfied with Bush as our President. The WASP establishment which routinely votes Democrat has driven me to the point of contemplating a "no return" policy to where I was born and raised, but I sure do miss our family farming over there. My great-grandfather was a milkman and my best friend is a farmer. We go to church, were scouts and are considered oddballs by the urban Yankees. My entire childhood was spent in the rural outdoors in agricultural communities, although there have been a few textile relations. Also, my wife is Scots-Irish Kentuckian (trailer and all) and my friend is Irish--his wife is Scottish. I resent the bloc-nationalists who try to exclude certain cultural scenes, such as secular Yankees disowning me as an outcast and Appalachian elitists who see that nobody from the countryside of the Northeast as fit to be "one of them". You two can have it out in the street, but I'm a Country-Western Anglo-American Catholic. They're in the minority, but do exist. Please don't make me hide in the shadows and suffer through you telling me that my heritage is fake. I've had enough of it. I've had enough of the bicoastal culture that rags on Middle America and expects me to condemn trailer and cabin dwelling cousins of mine. Go ahead, speak down to me too. I have more respect for Zell Miller than Ted Kennedy, while I come from "Kennedy country". I may like Irish Catholics, but I do not agree with that political scene and Marxism. I identify with "American ethnicity" and usually also nativism. My mother's family were Anglo-Irish landowners in the Ulster Plantation who went to Plymouth Colony for the slave trade, while my dad's mom's family was Wessex Englishmen from Eastern Connecticut. I think most people of my Redneck roots can tell when another person or people is Redneck. Maybe it has something to do with my father's family building pele towers and fighting the Scots on the Borders of Northern England, whilst being derided as backwards barbarians by the new aristocrats and other elitists. Read the book Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer, which shows that there is a common Anglo-Scottish-Ulster culture spanning Appalachia up into the woods of northern New England, where my uncle and aunt live out in the middle of nowhere. I can't believe how insulated you lot are from reality. You have never felt the scorn I have for my heritage; you live encased in your safe and secure blocs of influence, whilst I've been trampled on and treated like rubbish for nothing else than my background. Since misery loves company, it is no wonder I as a child had formed links with several kids and their families of similar origins. We liked wrestling, biking, monster trucks and playing cowboys and indians. That type of thing ain't cool in the leftist-intellectual preppy crowd, but as I said, we ain't all preppies in the first place. Consider President Pierce's "darkhorse" candidacy and my invisibility among you. I apparently don't exist, because you don't want to accept me and the Preppies ignore me except to make some snobbish comments. Perhaps I should tell my friends how foolish you are, to believe that exclaves and enclaves don't exist. Oh, you think that political spheres of influence have no dissenters and/or are static? HAHAHA, rich! Should I tell my grandma that her father wasn't a coal miner? You know everything! Doughface 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Heh, heh! I can condense that. Don't you dare call me a "Hillbilly" or a "Redneck!" I'm a proud Appalachian-American! Pollinator 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Fischer says that the most common placename for Appalachia was Cumberland and I come from Cumberland, Rhode Island (with all the common traits he said, including onomastics). Is it strange that my first crush on a girl in kindergarten was surnamed Campbell (Scottish) and that I've pursued redheads more than the average guy? My wife is a redhead... Doughface 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I tried to fix the grammar and awkward wording some, but there are a few sentences I don't understand:

"Since the formation of the Appalachian Regional Commission, poverty in Central Appalachia has spiraled upward coupled with what has become endemic atrophy of a very delicately balanced demographic spread throughout the region."

I understand the first part, but what does "endemic atrophy of a very delicately balanced demographic spread throughout the region" mean? I have no idea. A few $10 words but little sense. What does it mean?

"America's most under-reported and tragic tragedy."

Is this really a phrase people say often enough to include in this article? "Tragic tragedy"? While it may be true, those particular words sound silly.

"From West Virginia's only statesman Ken Hechler..."

West Virginia has only one statesman? Must be hard to run the government there. Pfly 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Pfly, I don't know if you checked the last diff before your edits, but this text is part of a very recent big addition by an anon. I left a note on the anon's page saying they should read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. My plan was to wait for them to fix it, and then revert if they didn't. Of course, you're doing far better than I would have by actually trying to fix it... but I thought I'd point this out in case you didn't notice the big new addition. -- Allen 05:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh.. I didn't notice. I began to fix before I realized the extent of it. On a few other pages I wondered what to do about similar additions -- the style of a kind of personal rant in poor, hard to understanding writing. In fact, I was just about to go looking for wikipedia suggestions on the topic! Revert away if you'd like. I was just doing some half-hearted damage-control. Pfly 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Follow-up on POV issue identified in September

I tagged the article as POV many weeks ago. I finally got around to doing something about it. I deleted everything in the "Economy" subsection under the ARC section. I added back a stub-like overview sentence of the economy in general, then added a paragraph on coal. So much for a "Wiki-break". This section could use additional material, especially on tourism, pretty much the mainstays in the mountainous parts of N.C., Tenn, and Ga.

I linked to National Mining Association data as back-up references for the stuff I added on coal -- it was the easiest to find. I understand many editors dislike the mining industry, but this data is reliable. Most of it is based on federal data, so if someone wants dig around the EIA web site for alternate links, be my guest. -- A. B. 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Appalachia's about a lot more than coal, so I was sorry to only get as far as a paragraph about coal, then have to put aside more work.

Also, while an earlier editor criticized the Appalachian Regional Commission for over-reliance on infrastructure investments, the fact is that decent highway access has been an economic godsend to hundreds of formerly isolated communities, so transportation should get an important mention -- at least as big as the paragraph on coal. Back to my Wikibreak for now. -- A. B. 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't immediately tell from simple reading, but in

Precedence from the past creates cycles of cynicism for some of America's first inhabitants.

shouldn't that be 'Precedents'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenme ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 October 2006

I'm a bit up in the air, but here's a definition of Precendence: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Precedence?s=t --Mari Adkins 05:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAdkins ( talk • contribs)

See

• The Andy Griffith Show
• Pilot Mountain (North Carolina) -- a lone peak near Mt. Pilot
• Pilot Mountain, North Carolina -- the inspiration for Mt. Pilot
  • Google satellite image of Pilot Mountain
• Mt. Pilot -- the fictional bigger town near Mayberry
• Siler City, North Carolina -- another town mentioned -- far to the east of the mountains
• Mount Airy, North Carolina -- Andy Griffith's hometown and supposedly the inspiration for Mayberry
  • Google satellite image of Mount Airy
• Surry County, North Carolina -- the location of both Pilot Mountain and Mt. Airy

Mayberry was never an Appalachian town in my mind. North Carolina's contains towns that sound as if they'd be in the mountains -- such as Mt. Airy, Kings Mountain and Pilot Mountain -- but they're not. They're in the Piedmont, which is very different physcially, linguistically, culturally, economically and politically. Rocky Mount is even in the coastal plains and flat as a pancake.

The actual peak of Pilot Mountain is sort of this isolated peak a bit east of the Appalachians that pokes up by itself out of the Piedmont near the town of the same name. The Appalachians themselves start not far to the west of Surry County, but the difference between the two areas is like night and day.

I'm deleting the reference for now. -- A. B. 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Nelson county isn't Appalachia by the definition I understand, since it lies entirely east of the Blue Ridge. Wilhelm Ritter 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

There are WAY too many external links in this article. Would anyone mind if I reduced the list drastically? -- Takeel 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Disclaimer: Because I am largely responsible for the Appalachia links collection at http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Regions/Appalachia/ , I consider myself ineligible to clean up this links list here. However, I agree that there are way too many external links, and I endorse your plan to reduce the list. Some of the listed links are total garbage. However, I also think that the article content is pretty thin regarding some of the topics covered by some of those links. If you undertake to clean up those links, you might consider spending some time expanding the article as you work along. -- orlady 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I see no conflict of interest and dmoz.org is specifically recommended as a link to have in the External Links Guideline. There are no excuses, orlady, so please get busy. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Many were added by an enthusiastic new editor; [2] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Appalachia&diff=91322842&oldid=91258099 see our discussion. Don't forget WP:BITE.

I suggest taking a second look at Wikipedia:External links first, followed by a quick skim of Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon. We don't have to have any external links and the fewer the better. Footnotes and references are always desired, but just plain old links are welcomed only lukewarmly. dmoz.org is recommended as a link-farm substitute. Likewise, links to other articles are encouraged, if not in the article, then in a "See Also" section.

Personally I think we should shoot for ≤4 links + dmoz.org. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

List of links for comment

Here's the current list of links for review and comment. Please don't don't forget to indent and sign:

• Appalachia at Curlie

Definite keeper. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• "Appalachia: Hollow Promises", a comprehensive 1999 series of articles on the region and the ARC published in the Columbus Dispatch

• Appalachian Center for Economy and the Environment

• Appalachian College Association

Delete; not about the region. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The site is not about the region, but Digital Library of Appalachia (essentially a subsite) looks relevant. -- orlady 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Appalachian Regional Commission, the primary Federal agency for managing programs in the region

Delete; while the ARC is important, we have an Appalachian Regional Commission article with links to the ARC site. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete in favor of the ARC wikipedia article. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Appalachian State University Center for Appalachian Studies

• Appalachian Studies Association

• Appalshop, Appalshop is an arts, crafts, and education center in Appalachia

Delete; article about this exists already. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with Takeel -- orlady 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Berea College Appalachian Center

Delete; not enough informational content to make this a particularly useful resource for someone who just read the article and wants to know more. -- orlady 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Center for Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University

• Craft Revival: Shaping North Carolina Past and Present, an online database of archival documents and images

• The Crooked Road: Virginia's Heritage Music Trail

• East Tennessee State University Center for Appalachian Studies and Services

• Johnson's Depot: The History of Johnson City, Tennessee

Delete; this appears to be spam -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• King College Appalachian Writers Association

Delete -- too specific. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete; not about Appalachia in general. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Marshall University Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia

Delete; not about Appalachia in general. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Marshall University Oral History of Appalachia Program

Delete; not about Appalachia in general. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Melungeon Heritage Organization

Delete -- too specific. We have a Melungeon article. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per A. B. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete for reasons given. -- orlady 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Morehead State University Center for Virtual Appalachia

• The Mountain Institute

Delete; not specifically about Appalachia. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with Takeel -- orlady 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Radford University Appalachian Regional Studies Center

Delete; not a particularly rich source of additional information (with the possible exception of the links list at http://www.radford.edu/~arsc/LINKS%20PAGE.htm ). -- orlady 04:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Ralph Stanley Museum & Traditional Mountain Music Center

Delete because we have an article about Ralph Stanley here. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with Takeel. -- orlady 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Southern Highland Craft Guild

Delete; not about Appalachia in general. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Saint Vincent College Center for Northern Appalachian Studies

Delete; website is not much more than a collection of blurbs for books offered for sale. -- orlady 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per Orlady. -- Takeel 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Tennessee Valley Authority

Delete -- too specific. We have a Tennessee Valley Authority article with a link to TVA's site. -- A. B. ^(talk) 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yep. Delete for reasons given by A.B. -- orlady 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per A. B. -- Takeel 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• University of Kentucky Appalachian Center

• Virginia's Appalachia Region

• Tennessee Technological University Appalachian Center for Craft

Delete; not about Appalachia in general. -- Takeel 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Western Carolina University Mountain Heritage Center

Two comments:

• You may have noticed an odd little comment about templates at the top of this section -- that's because Template:dmoz has been nominated for deletion. Once the TfD discussion is over, that note will automatically go away; if the tempate is deleted, the Dmoz link above (see"Appalachia at the Open Directory Project") will turn into a red link and we'll need to manually enter the external link.
• Where we have articles already for some of the links above, they can be added to the "See Also" section. (We may not want to add all of them; for instance, I think the TVA link may be getting a bit far afield).-- A. B. ^(talk) 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Today's big purge:

I deleted all the links recommended for deletion above plus more that I reviewed one by one; my edit summaries give my reasoning. I'm not the King of Appalachian Links, however, just another editor, so if I overstepped my bounds, please note it here. Hre's what's left with my comments:

• Appalachia at the Open Directory Project
  • Definite keeper
• "Appalachia: Hollow Promises", a comprehensive 1999 series of articles on the region and the ARC published in the Columbus Dispatch
  • I thought these were very good when I read them last year
• Appalachian Center for Economy and the Environment
  • Liberal advocacy group with a large, information-rich site. Highly POV, however -- your thoughts? I'm inclined to delete link as not meeting Reliable Sources Guideline and Original Research Policy -- these are self-published opinions of the organization, not peer-reivewed. I'm inclined to delete. Also, is this organization notable? (If it is, it should get its own article and a perhaps a wikilink here in "See Also", otherwise, another reason not to have an external link here).
• Digital Library of Appalachia (in lieu of the Appalachian College Association link)
• Morehead State University Center for Virtual Appalachia
  • Seems like a very light-weight counterpart to the Digital Library of Appalachia. I recommend deleting but what do you think?

-- A. B. ^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Should New Jersey be considered part of Appalachia? The mountain range obviously runs through the state, but I am not sure if part of NJ is culturally Appalachia or not. I have never seen any sociological or governmental definition of Appalachia that included NJ, nor have I met anyone from NJ who self identified as being from the region. Does anyone have any evidence that it should be included? 199.248.201.253 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems odd to me. My understanding is that the ARC-defined Appalachia extending into much of PA and NY is fairly controversial as it is. To include NJ as well, which even ARC doesn't do, seems a real stretch. Perhaps the editor who added NJ was thinking of the mountain range rather than the cultural region? Maybe a "citation needed" would do? Pfly 08:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am going to take NJ out until someone finds some citations to support its inclusion 199.248.201.253 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Initially, I thought NJ's inclusion was a good idea, but I was thinking of the mountains and the Appalachian Trail. You're right -- it's not really part of Appalachia (nor are NY, Mississippi or Alabama in my opinion). Most telling is that the ARC drew it's boundaries very wide to gain support in Congress from more Congressmen and Senators.-- A. B. ^(talk) 14:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I propose merging the Poverty in Appalachia article into this one. I see poverty as just one of the topics related to the broader topic of Appalachia, not a stand-alone topic. Merging will not be a simple matter, since there are some overlaps and factual discrepancies between the articles. Note that the poverty article is not cross-referenced with this article, and in fact is an orphan that has no regular Wikipedia articles linking to it.-- orlady 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Good idea. Fewer, bigger articles watched and edited by more people leads to fewer problems with POV, spam, and vandalism going unremoved --especially in an isolated, less monitored article such as Poverty in Appalachia. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with the merge, you've both raised excellent points. Roaming27 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merging the articles makes sense to me. Lasersnake 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree, why was this ever a separate article? Please do so. Leif902 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I also agree. "Poverty in Appalachia" recaps material better covered in "Appalachia," and doesn't have a great deal of information on poverty. Who's going to do it? Dwalls 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

In almost all general usage of the term "Appalachia" it refers specifically and only to the traditionally poor Southern mountain area.

"He grew up poor in Appalachia" means only one thing to almost any American: that this person came from somewhere around West Virginia or the mountains of Tennessee -- not from highly industrialized mid-20th Century Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or a prosperous West Pennsylvania farm (included on the map).

The common meaning of the term (the poor mountain South) should be presented as the primary definition, with the possible geographical meaning (the entire mountain range into Canada), and this strange invention of the Appalachian Region Commission, presented as alternate technical uses of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.248.139 ( talk) 03:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC). reply

Some of this is nonsense! There may be some prosperous west Pennslvania farms in some valleys, but there are a lot of very hardscrabble farms, and many have reverted to forest land because they could not sustain a livelihood in agriculture. Western Pennsyslvania and southwestern New York are very much Appalachia, which is why the commission included them. There are pockets that might not be "Appalachia," but the rural areas share a great deal in culture and lifestyle with the more southern portions. In addition the northern regions were the source of great migrations southward through the Great Valley, so the people are genetically related. Pollinator 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC) reply

There's not a lot of difference-- nor distance-- between West Virginia and metropolitan Pittsburgh. In fact, parts of West Virginia are sometimes considered a part of the Pittsburgh area- see Pittsburgh Tri-State for more on this. Moreover, Pittsburgh itself isn't exactly prosperous. It's certainly not as prosperous as Atlanta or Charlotte, both of which are very close to the area highlighted on the map. Arguably, Pittsburgh is also not as prosperous as Asheville, North Carolina or Knoxville, Tennessee, both of which are almost always included in definitions of the Appalachian region. Prosperity (or lack thereof) isn't the only criterion of Appalachia. -- SwissCelt 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The map is quite POV, (suggesting the map editor is wiser than ARC, perhaps). Appalachian culture and many other factors definitely extend much farther northward in rural areas. Furthermore, the map defines as "mountains" an area about twice the size of the southern Appalachians; it includes the Allegany and Cumberland Plateaus (which are NOT mountains) and a goodly chunk of piedmont as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollinator ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, it's been discussed multiple times here and I think on the ARC article's talk page that the ARC was defined based on politics as much as any cultural criteria. Mississippi maybe poor, but I'd be hard-pressed to find much Appalachian about northeast Mississippi. However, in the 1960s, Mississippi's two senators, James Eastland and John C. Stennis were two of the most powerful members of the Senate, so northeast Mississippi entered Appalachia. Long-serving senators John J. Sparkman and J. Lister Hill made sure large parts of non-Appalachian Alabama were drawn into the ARC's area. I can't speak to New York's congressional delegation at the time, but I know the Governor, Nelson Rockefeller, was a national force in politics and had a way of getting what he wanted. So I would very strongly oppose using the ARC map.

As for the Cumberland Plateau, the portions shown on the map are, if not super-mountainous, very hilly. [3] [4] [5]

-- A. B. ^(talk) 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I've taken the liberty of inserting the map here so we can discuss it more easily. The Appalachian Regional Commission definition of "Appalachia" is purely political (for example, no sensible person would consider any of Mississippi to be part of the region, but it was included in order to garner additional political support and to give anti-poverty funding to poor counties in Mississippi). I like the idea of using an overlay to depict the physical mountains and the ARC region. However, my eyebrows rise very high when I see that the cultural region is cleanly bounded on the north and west by the West Virginia state line. Culture seldom follows state lines. On reflection, I think that it probably is unwise to attempt to map the cultural region. As for the mountains, from a geologic/physiographic point of view the Alleghenies are part of the Appalachian range, but I agree that the Piedmont is not.-- orlady 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The map could be an improvement, but not yet. The map needs some fixing before it could be "official". First off the yellow line is probably the closest to the actual region known as Appalachia, but it needs to be clarified that this includes the Allegheny Plateau, the Cumberland Plateau, and some areas of Piedmont. In this respect Orlady is probably right about Mississippi.

Secondly the central green colored area needs to be removed, as it doesn't portray anything but a POV.

Secondly Applachia is very distinct from the South; those who think it is are likely northerners with tin ears that cannot distinguish the very significant differences in dialect, idioms, etc. Pollinator 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

To add to the above discussion, I made a quick map of the "core region" of Appalachia as defined in the book "Appalachia: A History" by John Alexander Williams (2002). The map shows the ARC definition in yellow and Williams' core in orange. Williams writes a bit about the difficulty of making a precise delineation of Appalachia and reviews some of the various attempts. He writes about some of the problems with the ARC definition (how it was overly influenced by politicians and money) and, while "accepting" the ARC definition, "offers a core region of 165 counties that have been included in most of the influential scholarly or government definitions of Appalachia published during the last century."

He also notes that Pennsylvania is included in Appalachia in "a minority of scholarly studies" and finds that appropriate as Pennsylvania was "by far the most important colonial hearth of Euro-American culture in Appalachia" and because "it was generally from Pennsylvania that the industrializing forces spread southward during the nineteenth century, and it was there that the socioeconomic issues raised by deindustrialization emerged to make the entire region a focus of policy concern in the twentieth." Though he goes on to note that Pennsylvania and nearby regions in Ohio and Maryland and part of West Virginia, contrast in many ways with the "core" region. Also, the Mason-Dixon line has been used by a great number of sources, he writes, which explains why so many maps of Appalachia end abruptly at the Pennsylvania state line. Northern Alabama, he notes, "serves something of the same function" as Pennsylvania.

Anyway, I thought I would offer this interesting source for an Appalachia "cultural core". Sorry I don't have time to make a better map. Pfly 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC) reply

This is great -- thank you. I consider this map definitive and propose using it for now. It certainly rings true with everything I've read and heard.

My wishlist:

1. Start with something like Image:Appalachians and Appalachia Map v2.jpg, Appalachiaeditor's map, only with a much bigger original (in terms of bits). Right now, we're squinting at the thumbnail trying to figure out if the physical range boundary includes the Piedmont or not (I don't htink it does). Even with the full image it's a bit ambiguous because of the image size and resolution. A bigger starting image will let us bicker more intelligently. -- A. B. ^(talk) 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Overlay the the ARC boundaries, labeling them as the ARC boundaries.
3. Overlay the Appalachia boundaries from Pfly's map. Since "Wikipedia has no opinion", we should label it as "Appalachia boundaries as defined by a majority of academic and government studies" with a footnote to Williams' book
4. Overlay the boundaries of the physical region(s) with a note or wikilink referring readers to the Appalachian Mountains article for more detail. Ideally, these boundaries should come from some sort of definitive work similar to Williams as opposed to only a talk page consensus (we need a talk page consensus, but that in itself is not an encyclopedic source). That, or we just overlay one or two contours such as "elevations above 1500 feet" -- or just go to a separate contour map altogether.

-- A. B. ^(talk) 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Here are some various scholar's definition of Appalachia that could be used to discuss the "core region" http://www.unc.edu/~whisnant/appal/maps/Appreg.gif I would recommend using either the Campbell map or the Ford map as the "core" and then explain how different scholars and govermental agencies have expanded or contracted the region based on their research. I will keep looking for more maps. I am pretty sure their is an arc.gov webpage that has a great number of the various scholarly definitions, I will keep looking for it.

Overall, I just want to say that we should be very careful not to turn this good effort into a battle over which states/counties should be considered "Appalachia" or the "core of Appalachia" or whatever. If any of you are familar with the other US regional wikipages, you know that the arguing whether to include or exclude certain states in various regions can be a serious headache. I recommend keeping the official ARC definition as the main map and add a separate section to discuss various scholarly definitions. There is already some dubious language in the "ARC" section of the main article that excludes Alabama and PA, from the "cultural Appalachia." Lasersnake 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

A lot's been done with linguistics and mapping the gradations of influence. You might start by raising some questions on the Appalachian English page. I think any Appalachian cultural influences are pretty weak by the time you get to NW Georgia and I don't think there's much of any in Alabama. (NE Georgia's a different matter). As for the ARC definition, I suggest going to the Huntsville, Alabama or Tupelo, Mississippi articles, clicking on the coordinates link in the upper right hand corner of the page, then clicking on any of the satellite links. You'll see a mixture of terrain that's flat as a pancake in some places and very gently rolling in others (such as you'd see around Princeton, New Jersey or Groton, Connecticut. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The ARC definition is far from perfect, but it is at least a recognizable standard to use. If we use Ford, Cambell or Williams' definition for our "official definition" than we are in the position of choosing one research over another. This is not impossible, but will open up alot of debate. I am interested in these linguistics gradations of influences you mention. Do you know if any are on the internet?

Just to point out, there are several different dialects spoken in Appalachia, the "actual" Appalachian English dialect region covers only about half of West Virginia and on south. All of the maps we are considering extend beyond the limits of the dialect region. I guess what I am saying is that one factor (dialect, geography, demographics) is not sufficient to define the region. Every expert in the field has a slightly different definition of the region, and as you point out, have to set the boundaries somewhere, even if it is largely arbritrary. Again, I would suggest keeping the ARC map as the main map. Despite its flaws, it is inclusive of all possible claimants of Appalachian identity, and is a US governmental regional standard.

As for the new map, I would suggest using Campbell's map as a "historic" scholarly defintion, Williams or Fords map as a "modern" scholarly definition and the ARC map as a "government" definition. This map would be a great centerpiece in a new section on Appalachian scholarship. Lasersnake 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• The map is a good and commendable start, but I have to quibble on some details. For example, how can we justify including Bartow County, Georgia-- a rapidly growing part of the Atlanta metropolitan area-- while excluding not only metro Pittsburgh but even such non-metro counties as Roane County, West Virginia? I'm also not sure what research is used to exclude areas of Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania... or any part of West Virginia, for that matter. -- SwissCelt 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I revert the page back to the "old" intro. The new one is very esoteric, and seems more interested in playing to the old stereotypes of backward miners, millhands, and mountaineers (to quote a book title) rather than presenting Appalachia as is really is today. A lot of the info in the "new" intro, like the part about the Wheeling radio station is good info and could be added to a different section of the article.

I would also like to add that the discussions about various scholarly research on the "core" of Appalachia is also useful information that could be given its own section in the article if it is done is a well referenced, scholarly way. I, for one, don't one to see this page become a revert battle between different groups trying to limit or expand Appalachia to match their own opinion of what the region is, was or should be. This is exactly why the official ARC boundraries are presented as the default definition of the regions boundaries. Thank you to all of the new editors who are adding content to the page, lets try to work together to find a way to add your contributions in a way that fits with the overall purpose of the article. Lasersnake 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised there's no mention of the Tennessee Valley Authority in this article. It's related to a variety of issues dealt with here, from river transportation to econonomic development in the region. Has the TVA been specifically excluded for some reason?

We have had a couple of edits over the last 24 hour about the terminology used to describe the different forms of coal mining in the "Economy" section of the page. Specifically should the term "surface mining" or "strip mining" be used. I have tried to find a middle ground by using the terminology "surface mining, often referred to as strip mining." I think "surface mining" is the more neutral term, but "strip mining" is used a lot more frequently in everyday usage, so it is probably worthy of some mention. What does everyone thing?
Lasersnake 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

"Surface mining" is a recognizable term, and suitably neutral. Thanks for thinking this through. -- orlady 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The etymology section states, without support, that "Appalachia" is a back-formation of "Appalachian". I can't find any evidence for this after checking several dictionaries, and in fact I see "Appalachian" given as derived from "Appalachia", as one would expect. Certainly "Appalachia" as "the land of the Appalachee" seems eminently plausible. While it would be great to find actual citations to resolve this one way or another, I'd bet that "Appalachia" is no more a back-formation of "Appalachian" than "Pennsylvania" is a back-formation of "Pennsylvanian". - Dmh 13:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Gutenburg turns up uses of "Appalachia" well before the administrative area was established. I've changed the article accordingly. - Dmh 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply