Talk:Richard Lippincott (Quaker)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal 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
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

Why does this person merit a Wikipedida entry. Having famous descendants or ancestors, having children, emigrating to America or being thrown into prison and buying some land do not seem to merit this. Anyone care to claim why this person is notable? 198.182.37.200 (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does anybody merit an article on Wikipedia? He was an influential and prominent member of the Quaker society. He was one of those who emigrated to the U.S. due to religious persecution and he became a noteworthy landowner in New Jersey. Why do we have a biography of Francis Ingoldsby or Hugh Bethell or Ove Juul? Why do we remember anybody who died over 300 hundred years ago without doing something that changed history? There are biographies on Wikipedia with less value than this one. 70.90.87.73 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious genealogy

The Norman ancestry claimed here for Richard Lippincott appears to be a nineteenth-century chestnut rejected by modern genealogists. Lippincott appears on no reputable lists of seventeenth-century colonial immigrants with proven medieval ancestry. I don't have the time to muster the sources that would justify editing this article, but good grief, if there isn't an internal Wikipedia project to critically examine and correct the immense amount of genealogical misinformation on Wikipedia, much of it based on long-rejected nineteenth-century claims, there should be. pnh (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]