Jump to content

Talk:Appalachian Mountains

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.22.155.114 (talk) at 12:37, 8 May 2012 (→Origin is not Spanish). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAppalachian Mountains was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 8, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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[reply]

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? ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(edit conflict) 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. —Bill Price (nyb) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.Ryoung122 18:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Appalachian_Mountains&oldid=491372638"