Talk:Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen

Marriage and children
He was born in 1691 in Lingen, East Friesland, now a part of Germany, to Johannes Henrich Frelinghaus, a Minister. He married Eva Terhune (1708-?) of Flatbush, Long Island and had the following children: All five sons became ministers and both daughters married ministers. Theodore was the progenitor for the Frelinghuysen family in New Jersey.
 * Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen II (1724-1761)
 * John Frelinghuysen (1727-1754), who was the father of Frederick Frelinghuysen (1753–1804)
 * Jacobus Frelinghuysen (c1730-1753)
 * Ferdinandus Frelinghuysen (c1732-1753)
 * Henricus Frelinghuysen (c1735-1757)
 * Margaret Frelinghuysen (1737-1757) who married Thomas F. Romeyn (1729-1794), a reverend
 * Anna Frelinghuysen (1738-1810)


 * The reason I truncated this is it is coming too close to breaking the "Wikipedia is not a genealogical database rule". If the kids are notable, sure write an article about each of his kids. I truncated the list, keeping pertinent info, you didn't need to repeat the name Frelinghuysen for each of them... &mdash;ExplorerCDT 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a genealogy database to write about your grandparents if they are not notable. Every high quality biographical article mentions spouses, parents, and children. It would be negligent if this information was omitted. Each son went on to start a congregation in New Jersey and will appear as the progenitor of the congregation in the article on that specific church. Its very difficult to write an article, if you are deleting sentences as I am writing them. I can't distinguish what I have omitted, and what you are deleting as I am writing it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These are my relatives, and I agree with the comment below that aside from giving us a few congressmen in the later years (who are notable), TJF is not notable, and his inclusion here violates the Wikipedia is not a geneaological database rule. High quality biographical article this is not.  You disputed my attempts to improve the quality by subtracting the fluff that reduced its quality. Negligence...no, because content-wise I didn't reduce much, just restyled it. Mentioning one's kids are one thing, however, going into..."but Son A was a minister, and Son B skinned pigs, and Son C went to jail for molesting little boys, his son was grandson B, who was also famous, and Daughter A married a streetsweeper is what makes this article a violation of the anti-geneaological database rule. Your last sentence is an appeal to pity, and thus a logical fallacy I should not discuss because it's just so contrary to the spirit of wikipedia in that you're asking me not to edit just because you happen to be editing at the same time.  Besides, review of the edit history shows you were obviously done with your work on the article when I interjected my work. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to take this to AfD and create community consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

 * 1691 Born in Lingen on the river Ems
 * 1717 Licensed by the Classis of Emden
 * 1718 Chaplain at the Logumer Voorwerk in East Friesland, and the Subrector at Enkhuizen on the Zuiderzee in West Friesland
 * 1720 Pastor of congregations at Raritan, New Brunswick, Six-Mile Run, Three-Mile Run, and North Branch in the Raritan Valley in New Jersey.
 * 1747 (circa) Death

I saw this on WP:3O. Apart from style, I fail to see where a claim to notability is made. For the moment I would spend more time making clear why this was a person of encyclopedic importance and less on adding biographical details. With or without the children listed, I'm quite certain the current article would not survice an AfD based on WP:NOT a genealogy website. What is the article on "The Father of American Pietism" about? This might be an angle to stress. ~ trialsanderrors 07:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, probably belongs in Wikipeople. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers category
I did my research, and the Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen who was involved in Rutgers history was the son (died in 1761 at sea while returning from an attempt to raise funds for the college), not the subject of this article. You should do you research, and be certain of it before you tell others to do theirs. Glad to see you removed your re-addition of the Rutgers category...without an apology (for your wrong-headed edit summary contra mea.) I might add. Smacks of hypocrisy, methinks, and that thou dost protest too much. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
I saw this article appear in Third opinion. I think the most recent edit by User:Philip Baird Shearer improved things, although I'm not convinced that the genealogy section contains sufficiently notable information to be appropriate for inclusion. But I don't have the knowledge to decide what to include. I'd say if any of his descendants or ancestors achieved notability, then include them, but otherwise listing sons and daughters aren't warranted.


 * You are confusing the notability requirements. Notability doesn't mean they did something great or outstanding, it just means that "multiple, non trivial sources" committed the information to print so that the information can be verified. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, the only other criticism I have about this article is the impression I got when I read the opening: "Why should I care?" In other words, the opening should explain why this individual is notable. What was he known for, other than being a theologian? What significant contribution did he make to his field of knowledge? Was he considered "notable" or actually "notorious"? It isn't clear until I get all the way down to the encyclopedia quote, which says, "His evangelical fervor and autonomous actions helped to instill an element of local independence for Dutch churches in North America's middle colonies." Now that is something notable that should appear in the introductory paragraph!

(P.S. I'd appreciate if someone here weighed in on the other Third opinion requests). -Amatulic 18:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

East Friesland
Lingen was never a part of East Friesland/East Frisia, which is north. It's a german-speaking city which in 1691 was part of the Union of Utrecht (until 1713). Formerly the capital of an own county (Grafschaft Lingen), in the 17-th and 18-th centuries it was repeatedly conquered by dutch and spanish troops, by the kingdom of Hannover and at last by Prussia. So the citizens were repeatedly forced to change their religion from catholicism to calvinsm and back, until Prussia at last unsuccessfully tried to push them to lutheranism. Those were the times. Borders and possessions changed quickly. ThomasPusch (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)