Talk:Adelicia Acklen

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)

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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Source of wealth
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * [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)