Talk:Dandelion and burdock

message: Rubbish, source cited is a 64 page childrens book, removed the paragraph as such.
: I reverted the edit. A cite is a cite. Non-fiction childrens books often have good facts, editors from publishing houses make`sure of it. --Dave 12:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRA 

message: Took 'airfix glue' out of the ingredients list since this is quite blatantly taking the mick; and indeed tesco.com does not list this particular unpleasant chemical additive among the list of such (requires sign-in) in its version of the drink. 
Larkascending 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airfix glue 

message: Are there any particular regions where the drink is more popular? I recall it being pretty widely available in Somerset back in the day (the '90s :) ). I never see it in Ireland though. --Zilog Jones 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional popularity? 

message: These edits were made by an anon whose other edits are vandalism. Can someone check them? .. dave souza, talk 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon vandal?

message: No idea why the subject popped into my head but upon reading the article I have to say I don't understand the taste comparisons.  D&B was my favourite pop growing up.  I remember watching Radar drinking sarsaparilla on M.A.S.H. and being completely gobsmacked when, on my first visit to Boston, I sought out "the best" place to try a good one.  I thought it was a joke because it tasted so much like the nasty mouth wash from the UK dentist.  I don't have any qualification as a taster but IMHO they're completely dissimilar. 71.54.192.245 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Tastes?

message: I would be curious to know the history of D&B as a popular drink in temperance houses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantnm (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperance drink 

message: What's the source of that data? I assume this soft drink contains quite some sugar/syrup and surely not "less than 0.1 g carbohydrates", therefore more than 2 kcal per .33 litres. --91.32.178.243 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That table is nonsense.  If you follow the external links given to both the Fentimans and Barrs sites you can see the real figures.  Even the diet drinks have more carbohydrate than that.  MidlandLinda (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutritional value 

message: Apparently, beer can also be made. --Trevj (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol content 

message: The original link returned a 404. The one I added works and I suspects points at the same content, but is really designed to be displayed in a html frame. Not sure it adds much value to the article. Cafuego (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mawsons's link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dandelion and burdock. 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/20140727133609/http://www.fentimans.com/soft_drinks to http://www.fentimans.com/soft_drinks
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) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://boards.4channel.org/his/thread/7455172#p7455682
http://boards.4channel.org/his/thread/7455172#p7455699
Is there any way we could prove or disprove this claim? --108.20.184.19 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to know the individuals who made the original edit which has since been propagated across the internet and unfortunately recited in this article. The edit itself was flagged as vandalism in the 'Anon vandal?' post on this talk page. If no external sources predate that, then maybe that is sufficient proof?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloriders (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aquinas stuff was only cited to a student blog, not a reliable source. I have therefore removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  4Chan user claims they made up "the Thomas Aquinas origin myth" on this article 

message: The second paragraph (or first section after lede, whatever you want to call it), that starts out rather confusingly with "The main ingredient of those other drinks...". What other drinks? What's been removed, or have the sections been shuffled etc? 80.189.129.252 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's even going on here