Talk:Adelicia Acklen

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Tennessee Mid‑importance

	Tennessee portal Adelicia Acklen is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cheatham

"Adelicia Hayes Franklin Acklen Cheatham" - how did she acquire the name Cheatham? There is no reference to a third marriage. "In 1867, she remarried to Joseph Alexander Smith Acklen. Together, they built the Belmont Mansion" - this marriage date is probably wrong. The Belmont Mansion page says 1849 - and also that they had six children, which would have been unlikely if she married at the age of 50. I hope that someone with access to original sources will fix these issues. 76.119.234.107 (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

A lot of this is wrong. She was my great grandmother's cousin. Adelicia was NOT a slave trader, as this says. Adelicia was married to a slave trader. When he died, she acquired his estate and money and she freed the slaves and ceased any affiliations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:8000:2B50:410C:B113:4156:39D6 (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527115153/http://www.belmont.edu/development/current_projects/historic_preservation.html to http://www.belmont.edu/development/current_projects/historic_preservation.html

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) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source of wealth

@Zigzig20s: Did you read WP:LEAD as I suggested? I see nothing in the article to support "Her fortune came from enslaved human beings." The closest we have is "she inherited the Fairvue Plantation... [list of assets, including but not limited to slaves]. As a result, she became the wealthiest woman in Tennessee." This makes it sound like she inherited her wealth. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband was a slave trader, and she became the richest woman in Tennessee after his death.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source of her wealth seems obvious to me. The concern I have is that enslaved blacks were dehumanized and viewed as "property" (sic) prior to the American Civil War. So should we write this from our viewpoint (human beings) or hers (property)? That's always contentious in historiography.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what seems obvious to you. See WP:OR. If you want to say "Her fortune came from enslaved human beings" then you first need to put this in the body of the article (after the lead) with a citation to a source that says that. You would write this from the viewpoint taken by the source. If there are multiple sources each with its own viewpoint, then you can include each of them. Then you can summarize that statement for the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It is obvious where the money came from (suddenly her slave trader of a husband dies and she becomes Tennessee's richest woman), but I'm happy to go with the consensus here and trim the sentence from the lede. There may be more RS spelling it out but I don't have time to look for them right now. Thank you for your contribution!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Note to future readers] This is in response to this. I believe there is a problem on Wikipedia where we don't fully contextualize "planters", "Southern belles" or the "Southern aristocracy." Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]