Jump to content

Talk:Appalachia

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


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloek103.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 12 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GoCats233.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term "Appalachia"

[edit]

As the source of the term from a Muscogean language is widely accepted, and "another hypothesis" in the Etymology section that it is derived from the European "appellation" is unsourced, I have removed that sentence with that highly doubtful claim. If someone can source it, by all means put it back in. Dwalls 21:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Kingsolver

[edit]

I was wondering why Barbara Kingsolver gets a mention under the "Popular Culture" heading but not under "Literature". She has a substantial literary reputations and, I believe, she grew up in eastern Kentucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.145.40.44 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachia Independence Movement

[edit]

I recall hearing about it from a friend from Ellijay, Georgia a rural small town turning into an exurb of Atlanta, who knew about some of the proud yet struggling Appalachian peoples are fiddling with the idea of regional secession to make Appalachia an independent nation. There have been county and state secession plans in the region, due to the great socioeconomic and cultural differences between Appalachian people and newcomers moved into certain towns or cities. I didn't find anything on the google and yahoo search engines about the movement, must be a tongue-in-cheek humor on how Appalachia is a self-autonomous culture of its own. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it. Bms4880 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even "tongue-in-cheek humor" would require a reliable source (demonstrating that it's well-known) to see how it might fit into this topic Tedickey (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

[edit]

What was the point of moving this article to "Appalachia (region)"? Why was there no discussion on this? Bms4880 (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I can't think of anything else named Appalachia. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per request. (Full disclosure: I'm closing this early, and I participated in the discussion. However, there was strong and unanimous support for this, and by rights I think it could have been handled as an uncontroversial move. Orlady (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachia (region) → Appalachia — People searching for "Appalachia" are almost invariably searching for the region. There was no discussion on the previous move. The current "Appalachia" merely redirects to this page. Bms4880 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the move because to my knowledge there is nothing else named Appalachia. I think the policy on this is WP:PRECISION--Guerillero | My Talk 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWhat else is it if not a region? Titles are not for article text, only topic identification. For example, the title White House (President's residence in Washington, D.C.) is just starting the article in the title. No need there, or here. Ocaasi (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! - The move from Appalachia to Appalachia (region) was a mistake that needs to be reversed. The region is clearly the primary topic for "Appalachia". --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I didn't understand the move; no reason was given as far as I can tell. Pfly (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No previous discussion; no ascertainable point to previous move. Dwalls (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Support Appalachia (region) is redundant as there is no other "Appalachia" to confuse it with, and no ambiguity. Eastcote (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support per all of the above. Willking1979 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree. "keep it simple" is good advice for an encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isn't this ready for a WP:SNOW close? --JaGatalk 09:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely however it has only 2 more days left so it looks easier to just let it expire --Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, unless I am mistaken, it will require an admin to do the actual move. Pfly (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move (again)

[edit]

Once again, the article has been moved to Appalachia (Region), but now a new article has been created for Appalachia, describing it as a land area in the Mesazoic era. The consensus was to retain Appalachia for the present day area in the United States, and I, for one, do not appreciate the hostile takeover. Most people, 99 of 100, would be looking for the modern day Appalachia and have never heard of Mesazoic Appalachia. The primary "Appalachia" article should be the modern area, with disambiguation to the Mesazoic area. And as always, DISCUSSION before major changes like this should be the order of the day. Eastcote (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, Orlady. If I'd known how, I'd've done what you did. Eastcote (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only Wikipedia administrators can do what I (and Shubinator) did. And now the pages are protected, so that only administrators can move them. --Orlady (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Appalachia

[edit]

There is no mention of Cumberland Gap National Historical Park here, and there should be. Mari 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAdkins (talk • contribs)

Added 1965 Congressional definition

[edit]

Added it to the external links, saw the notation to add it to talk page as well, its the congressional definition so I'd be curious if any editor sees it as not encyclopedic. Thanks. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New geology section

[edit]

In looking at this new "regions" section -- now renamed to "Geologic Regions": The main article seems to suggest only five regions, with the Alleghenies part of the Ridge and Valley region. I am far from expert, but perhaps someone who is can comment/fix. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the title of the "regions" section to "Physiographic provinces". That's because it was a list of physiographic provinces and because I've learned that the names and boundaries of geologic subdivisions don't always match the names and boundaries of physiographic provinces. For example, in western Virginia, there's Blue Ridge geology in the Piedmont physiographic province (or maybe it's Piedmont geology in the Blue Ridge physiographic province; I don't remember it very well). Regardless, for both physiography and geology, the definitions of the regions and the locations of the boundaries between them are based on semi-subjective judgments by humans (and those judgments may have changed over time), so there's no single "right answer".
An additional related issue (discussed at some length earlier on this page) is the question of whether the Piedmont is properly part of the Appalachians. IMO, it's best for the Appalachia article to acknowledge and describe some vagueness in the definitions of the various regions. Further refinements probably are needed in the article(s). --Orlady (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major cities list in first paragraph

[edit]

I happen to reside in Boone, NC.

I noticed that in the major cities list, Asheville is included, but Winston-Salem is not. I wouldn't argue that Winston-Salem is culturally in Appalachia or not - that would be difficult to determine. Winston-Salem does bear much influence of Appalachian music (for example, on WFDD). However, it is certainly in the Appalachian Regional Commission charter boundary (Forsyth County is listed here), and it is more than twice the size of Asheville. I would definitely argue that Roanoke, VA is culturally Appalachian, although it technically lies outside the ARC boundary. It is about the same size as Asheville. Charleston, WV is a state capitol... but it isn't listed.

What exactly makes a city "major" enough and Appalachian enough to be included on this list? --Mm35173 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown, NY, population ~30,000, is significant regional center, but is not listed.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Appalachia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Appalachia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I note that the 1987 movie Matewan isn't included. Neither is the area history of the Matewan coal strike and the massacre, which the movie is based on. I don't really know enough about it to add it to this section. I do believe, though, that there are Wiki entries on both. Mari Adkins 06:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAdkins (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Appalachia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Feedback

[edit]

Appalachia:

Population and Geography The claims in the first paragraph are mutually contradictory. It states that the region "stretches from the Southern Tier of New York State to northern Alabama and Georgia" but then states that "Appalachia [sic; no quotation marks] typically refers only to the cultural region of the central and southern portions of the range, from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia southwest to the Great Smoky Mountains". But it then goes on to state that "In 2019, the region was home to an estimated 25.7 million people, of which roughly 81% are white". The problem is that this population figure comes from the original, ARC-specified region (New York through Mississippi) not from the smaller, supposedly "typical" range of Virginia through to the Little Tennessee River, whose total population would be FAR smaller. The article goes on at several points to confuse and arbitrarily mix these two definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManifoldSky (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotyping While there is a tab that addresses stereotyping in this article, I still feel that there is some stereotyping when taking about religion and education. With Religion, I notice it mostly in talking about how their main education was about the bible and that they are significantly behind other states in education. I believe this is an unfair statement because the Appalachian Region is so large, consisting of 13 states including Kentucky, Ohio, and all of West Virginia.

Music - I feel that there is not enough information about music in the Appalachian Region. Bluegrass was started in Kentucky and widely influenced other types of music coming out of this region. It has become a huge part of Appalachian culture.

-article talks about Eastern Kentuckians moving to Cincinnati with the mechanization of coal mining and I found this interesting because my family moved from Owenton Kentucky to the very northern parts of Kentucky and Cincinnati.

Logging -does a good job of explaining, all trees in Daniel Boone National Forest and most wooded areas in Kentucky and other states have trees less than 100 years old due to such widespread logging. They cut all trees down for millions of acres until there was nothing and regrowth process was slow.

Coal Mining -does not mention income of workers specifically which I think is important to include. Also doesn't talk about the Coal Mining Towns that the miners and their families lived in. They had so much coal dust in their water that they could light it on fire. This was a really important part of Appalachian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wainscemuc (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story on Appalachia Wiki Editors

[edit]

Greetings,

I am working on a story for the outlet 100 Days in Appalachia about Appalachia Wiki editors on Wikipedia. I would like to extend an invitation to the editors of the Appalachia Wiki to participate in an interview for my story. If you would be interested, please let me know.

Writerinappalachia (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue in the "Political History since 1964" section

[edit]

The section in question seems to exclusively promote a single point of view, which acknowledges that it is not even the predominant point of view. Wikipedia articles should not be for promoting single-opinion agendas. Jaysbro (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed two paragraphs for now, one which seemed to be original research, and the last paragraph, which was completely uncited. Probably the whole section should be removed unless other sources and views are added... Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed the rest of it, as it seems whoever added it is no longer around to fix it. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and MSAs

[edit]

I decided to change the previously arbitrary list of cities to a list of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) as defined by the 2020 census. This definition allows for a closed set of the most important urban areas in the region even if the principal city does not meet a certain population criteria, as was done previously, and places suburbs implicitly under their appropriate MSA instead of being stand alone items. However, @Skyerise appears to have a strong desire to include Oneonta, New York on the page, yet the town is not defined as an MSA by the 2020 census. I strongly support limiting the list to MSAs in order to avoid an indiscriminate list, however I would like to hear y'all's thoughts before potentially starting an edit war. --Leviavery (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the section is Cities. It has always been a list of cities. Please make the city primary (first column). MSA is simply additional information which does not always apply. It is not the thing being listed. Personally, I hate the use of tables for something that can be done with a bulleted list. Since there was no consensus on the talk page to convert it to a table, I'm tempted to revert the whole change and start over. Tables are hard to maintain. You've also not sourced the table at all, so there are two reasons to revert the whole thing, lack of consensus and lack of verifiability. Skyerise (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title is best kept as Cities, but I do acknowledge that it could be changed to Urban Areas or something related depending on how specific we want to be. Keeping the current title, I agree that it would be better to list the principal cities on the first column; however, stating that the table is based on MSAs will ensure that the article is improved by having a clear and comprehensive definition of what should be included. Per WP:WHENTABLE, this is a fine use; I made the table because I wanted to easily sort the cities by population to see which were the highest and lowest, and I can only guess that other users who come to the page would want the same. As the previous bulleted list already included population in parentheses, this table is no harder to maintain, and as MSAs are census defined, it will save time by not requiring searching through city articles to find ones which meet the previous arbitrary population criteria. As to verifiability, the information in question is not particularly contentious, and certainly no more so than the previous list, but it will be easy to add the 2020 census as a source once we reach consensus on this matter. --Leviavery (talk)
Well, since it's all sortable, which is useful, I'll agree to the table format. Let's keep title and move the city to the first column. The inclusion criteria should be: (1) it's in Appalachia, and (2) it's called a city by its government. An incomplete list of cities will lead the reader looking for a certain city to a wrong conclusion. So it should be comprehensive. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While including all municipalities designated as a "city" is certainly a unique perspective, in most US states this is designation is arbitrary, and a "city" is not necessarily more important than a "town". For example take the "city" of Kingston, Tennessee compared to the larger "town" of Farragut, Tennessee. Including all of these "cities" would create a list with hundreds of entries, yet would still leave out many more important "towns". Lists of cities on regional Wikipedia articles are assumed to only refer to major cities, and as the term "major city" does not have a clear definition, using MSAs is our next best option to make a comprehensive list of the most important urban areas. --Leviavery (talk)
Rurally-situated cities outside of metropolitan areas are important in Appalachia. I've changed the Oneonta entry to reference its micropolitan area. I propose we solve inclusion on a case-by-case basis as editors attempt to add entries. Skyerise (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to including micropolitan areas as well, but we already have a good-sized list of 46 MSAs; including micropolitan statistical areas would approximately double this number. I'd like to get some feedback from other editors without a vested interest in the matter before we make a final decision. --Leviavery (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @User:AppalachianCentrist (the first active user I could think of in Wikiproject:Appalachia) --Leviavery (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I note there's another section on the topic above, #Major cities list in first paragraph by @Mm35173: (who may no longer be around). While it refers to an old version of the article, it bring ups points about cities which might be expected to be included so would seem to be relevant here. Skyerise (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Map

[edit]

As noted at the very beginning of the article, Appalachia is primarily a "cultural region", but the map of Appalachia shown in the infobox is from the solely economics-based Appalachian Regional Commission, as are all statistics shown. To a typical reader, this will be the first map they see and will give a variety of misconceptions about Appalachia (ranging from excluding large swathes of Appalachian Virginia to the controversial inclusion of areas like upstate New York and Mississippi). I believe these ARC maps should be swapped with the cultural definition map in the "Defining Appalachia" to better represent Appalachia without completely removing the importance of the ARC. I understand this would add some ambiguity, but I think Appalachia's borders are somewhat ambiguous. I would like to hear some feedback on this idea before I make any changes. Brooklaika (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide citations for ARC being controversial? Skyerise (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This article is all about how Appalachian Mississippi was quite literally invented in order to get money from the ARC. Brooklaika (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Goes in the ARC article. However, be that as it may, the ARC definition is the US Congress' definition, so that's what we follow. Unless you are saying that some other definition is more authoritative? Not following the official definition opens the article to all kinds of edit warring regarding which of many potential sources to follow. I oppose this move.
Have you ever driven from Oxford, MS to Oneonta, NY? I have. It all seems pretty culturally Appalachian to me. Especially that part of Pennsylvania you'd want to exclude. And that Southern tier of NY? Big sections with almost no cell phone coverage; they want it that way, and it's not because they're Amish - they're not, they're Appalachian. High levels of Trump supporters in both places, like the rest of Appalachia. Skyerise (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ARC map is clearly not a geographical map but a politically generated map. Why does south central Appalachia go all the way up the side of WV but excludes WV? NY was included as a trade-off to include Mississippi which got in using forged maps. I do not object to the use of the ARC map, but more about the differences within Appalachia should be addressed, such as the religious break that occurs at the Mason-Dixon line, above it is heavily Catholic, below, not. That is just one major cleavage in the ARC definition. Here is another article questioning the use of "Appalachia" as a cultural term, "The Uses and Misuses of Appalachian Culture"[[1]] Dubyavee (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "working paper"? In what journal has it been published? Skyerise (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was published in the Journal of Appalachian Studies, Volume 22, Issue 1, Spring 2016.
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/jas/article-abstract/22/1/103/226028/The-Uses-and-Misuses-of-Appalachian-Culture?redirectedFrom=fulltext Dubyavee (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, that controversy is already in the ARC article. Second, I do not want to exclude those parts of Appalachia but rather use this image which pulls together a variety of historical maps with definitions of Appalachia (cited in the file description; most notably from this collection). I would like to note that definitions including upstate New York due to its mountainous terrain and the ARC borders are shown.
Moreover, having no cell phone coverage and/or voting for Trump are not indicators of Appalachia. They are indicators of being in a rural area, which is far less specific than being Appalachian. And while I have not been to that area of Mississippi, I have been to upstate New York and it is far less Appalachian than the Shenandoah Valley where I currently live.
Regardless, and this will be the last time I repeat myself, US Congress's attempt to create a map based on economic need is not the authoritative source on a cultural region. I am not aware of any rule that states Wikipedia is required to follow the discretion of the US government. Scholarly work, as linked above, is far more useful. Brooklaika (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does a popular magazine article and an unpublished paper = "scholarly work"? Y'all gonna have to find better sources than that, recent ones, and then show there is general agreement on the definition amongst those works. Skyerise (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked is from "Southern Cultures", a peer-reviewed journal published by the University of North Carolina.
This map gallery I linked that is cited by the map I want to swap out cites every single map it uses in its collection, and the actual image explains its methodology for choosing each color.
You should look into these things before making assuptions. Brooklaika (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you keep making false assertions to support your position. For example, Pennsylvania is considered predominantly Protestant. Only NY state is considered more Catholic, and I bet if we had state demographics, the Southern tier would be more Protestant. This whole effort seems like original research intended to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Skyerise (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me one example of a false assertion I have made, and I have not mentioned religion a single time except in response to you. You can take that up with Skyerise. If you think the existence of the ARC is a "Great Wrong" you are welcome to think that, I am simply noting that it was not intended to be and is not a cultural definition. Which is what this Wikipedia article is claiming to be. You can open a separate discussion about whether to change its description to a socio-economic region if you would like. Brooklaika (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, almost forgot. You are aware that Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony, right? And it's south of the Mason-Dixon line. Are you asserting that say, Cumberland, Maryland isn't in Appalachia? Them's fightin' words (to somebody). Skyerise (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Old maps are not reliable sources for current boundaries. Things change. What about PARC 1964? Dubyavee (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying to the wrong person. I am making no such claim, and you are strawmanning the other person. They simply said they wanted clearer reasoning behind the subregional definitions the ARC chooses. No normative claim about Catholicism being un-Appalachian was made. Brooklaika (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was supposed to be sent to the comment above but oh well. Brooklaika (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how maps from as recently as 1994 and 1996 are no longer relevant only a generation later. As for my personal beliefs, I think PARC 1964 is an okay map. Brooklaika (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short story. This has been discussed before (check the archives). The consensus was that using any other definition than ARC would be a total headache. None of the previously proposed definitions and maps agree with each other. Which source does one take as definitive, one from 1896? 1914? And strangely, almost all the old maps on that page are labelled economic and social-economic maps. But isn't that the complaint against the ARC maps? Looks to me like Appalachia has always been socio-economically defined. Skyerise (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the maps are socio-economic, which is why maps with cultural defintions were specifically selected for the image I am wanting to swap in. Again, that is in the image description. Also, can you link the place this was previously discussed? Brooklaika (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The archives are linked at the top of the talk page. I've fixed the misstatement in the lead. You'll note that the older the map, the smaller the territory. The general trend has been increasing boundaries. That's why 30 year-old maps are obsolete except perhaps for the History of Appalachia section. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per the article (cited) "The most commonly used modern definition of Appalachia is the one initially defined by the Appalachian Regional Commission in 1965 and expanded over subsequent decades." On Wikipedia, we use the current common definition. Skyerise (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between older cultural definitions and the current common definition is covered in the "Defining the region" section. Sounds to me like you may have improvements for that section, but for the article as a whole we follow the current common definition. Appalachia, defined in socio-economic terms since at least the 1930s, has grown. It's that simple. It's not up to us to reverse that, though we may report on reliable sources which object to this. We follow the mainstream, not the critics. Skyerise (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to you most three comments at once, while I hold that the ARC definition is not accurate to what most people reading this article are looking for, I will concede that it is the most encyclopedic definition currently available. I do strongly contest the change in the lede to "socio-economic", however. Appalachia is not just socio-economic region. Perhaps a compromise with "cultural and socio-economic region"? Brooklaika (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm allowed to add to my comments. It's not worth mentioning. I added a link to cultural region in the second paragraph. Current definition is socio-economic, cultural definition was used before 1965. Appalachian culture is a subsection. Skyerise (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite wrong about that. You cannot ignore the criticism as that is part of the subject, that is an important aspect of the subject. You must include controversies and criticisms in articles. The ARC map is now 50+ years old. Dubyavee (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism is included, both at Appalachia#Defining the region and Appalachian Regional Commission. More can be added. That doesn't mean we stop using the currently most common definition as the basis of the article, which is what this thread is about. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: scholars have introduced the term Old Appalachia to refer to the pre-ARC cultural definition of Appalachia. Write an article if you like. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re " 50+ years old". Not at all true. The 1984 map was drawn 39 years ago, yes, but ARC continues to update the maps, with the subregion boundaries last updated in 2009, just 14 years ago. Skyerise (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Edits

[edit]

I've rolled back edits from 7/15 that in some cases removed linked sources and then claimed information that was based on those sources was unsourced. Opening this to discuss these edits if editors wish to reincorporate them. glman (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Appalachia&oldid=1247672604"