Talk:Twin Lakes (Connecticut)

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Stub‑class

	Lakes portal Twin Lakes (Connecticut) is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Etymology Section Appears to Be Original Research

The entire etymology section in this article would appear to be comprised of original research, which is explicitly not permitted for Wikipedia articles as per WP:OR. I'll be revisiting this article soon, finding valid reference material for what portions I can, and probably removing all other unsubstantiated, unreferenced, WP:OR claims in that section. I'm starting this talk page section such that anyone who would like to discuss this issue prior to clean-up has the opportunity to do so. —Jgcoleman (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested in September of last year, the Etymology section of this article constituted a clear violation of WP:OR, with the only "reference material" offered being a name and mailing address. I started this talk page discussion over 6 months ago in an effort to try to get the bottom of this section and determine if any editors here knew of published source material for the etymological claims being made. There has been no response. Consequently, the time has come to fix the article up by removing unverifiable (WP:VERIFY), original research. —Jgcoleman (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]