Talk:Lean (drug)

Its a damn Liquor

Sizzurp should not be associated with the cough syrup, its actually a liquor, search Google Images...what pops up?? Green420jdubb (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So? Someone saw a brand-name waiting for product to back it up and made one. That doesn't alter the slang used. Notice how the sizz in the article has a lower-case s? The only person associating Sizzurp with sizzurp is you and all the rest of the mugs who buy it for what it isn't. 81.157.42.138 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

DXM containing cough syrups

Cnota 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

lots of cough syrups also have dextromethorpan hydrobromide, a cough supressant that when taken in large doses, along the order of a bottle or two of syrup, results in a significant hallucinatory and disassociative episode, on par with most illegal hallucinogens. This is definately also a factor in these experiences.

Actually, since the cough syrup used is usually a codeine-containing cough syrup, the use of dextromethorphan (DXM) in OTC cough syrups is usually not a factor in the effects of what is usually referred to as "purple drank." The effects of codeine and DXM are very different, with DXM being a dissociative (by way of NMDA antagonism) and codeine being an opiate. It is also important to note that many OTC DXM cough syrups also contain guaifenesin and/or acetomenophan which if used in large quantities can cause severe health defects. JAVIonics 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Purplish Hue

Is in fact, not derived from codeine, but from added dyes to make the cough syrup more distinct in color.

--65.33.43.1 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Meanings

Designating a precise definition of "purple drank" could be deceptive. The black community is known for its celebration of beverages that are low cost and contain a lot of sugar (like koolaid and generic brand carbonated sodas). The grape flavors of these drinks are, of course, purple. When an urban person says "purple drank" they may well be referring to something more innocent. I cite Dave Chappelle's comments about a Sunny Delight ad in which the term "purple stuff" is invoked. He joked that had a black young man been in the commercial he would have preferred the “purple drank”.--Gtg207u 05:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

--65.33.43.1 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ability to cause blindness

As mentioned in the article, the syrup (assuming mixture of codeine and promethazine) is characterized as having the ability to cause blindness in larger doses. Can someone cite a source for this?

Needs more Grimace

The main article needs that infamous Photoshopped picture of Grimace, the purple McDonald's mascot character, holding a huge bottle of cough syrup and grinning, with gold teeth showing, and the large caption, "PURPLE DRANK, I'm-a grip and sip"

Seriously, is this Wikipedia, or is this encyclopediadramatica?

If the aforementioned picture is important to the concept then it isn't ridiculous. A picture of chicken sex is absurd in the mass consciousness but might be extremely contextual in a John Waters article. I say do what gets the job done as long as you're not stepping on copy rights.--Gtg207u 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one...

I'm sorry to disrupt the talk page like this, but am I the only one who finds the fact that "Lack of coughing" is listed in the article as an effect is incredibly funny? Calgary 06:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just a vandalism edit. And yes, more clever than "I love jane". Eli lilly 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this legal?

Not making a judgement call about those who drink it, but the opening paragraph of the article has me confused. It begins by stating that the drink is legal, but the description of it as containing prescription-strength codeine levels makes me question its legality. What are the loopholes that make this legal? If it involves OTC codeine syrups, then the "prescription-strength" claim is off-base. If it's prescription-strength, then prescription diversion (if not other things like scrip forgery) belies the "drink is legal" claim. Student Driver 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism introduced two edits back, thanks for catching it. Eli lilly 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Codeine is always prescription only, dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.239.212 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Sizzurp would be more accurate of an "official" name than purple drank

I have been recently dissecting the lyrics to several popular hip-hop songs that have mention of this concoction, and I would like to add some clarifications based on what I've been able to glean.

In the lyrics of the Three 6 song "Sippin on that Syrup"(pronounced sizzurp in the song), one of the rappers sings, "I got the wet promethazine, thick orange and yellow Tuss". Shortly thereafter he sings "Hydrocodone on that hands free phone" and then later "40 dollars for just one ounce ounce, Tussionex is how its pronounced". Even later in the song is "Nothing like that yella yella that will have you itching man". There is also a song by a rapper named "Chrome"(possibly Lil Chrome) who has a song entitled 1G 0z, the main chorus in which he sings "I got 16 ounces purple and yellow Tuss".

We already know that the original intoxicating ingredient in the beverage is a purple prescription strength cough syrup containing promethazine(an antihistamine, commonly used to relieve allergy symptoms) and codeine(an opium-derived pain medicine). However, there is another prescription-only cough syrup containing an antihistamine and pain-killer that can be substituted, and that medicine is currently under the brand name "Tussionex". Chlorpheniramine is substituted for the promethazine, and hydrocodone is substitued for the codeine. Both are commonly used to treat very severe coughing when over the counter syrups containing dextromethorphan are not enough.

Because I have been prescribed Tussionex, I can attest to the fact that it has an orange/yellow color. I think what the wikipedia article refers to as "purple drank", is a misnomer, due to the fact that the purple color is achieved by using only one of the two possible intoxicating prescription-strength syrups. When Three 6 Mafia coined the term "Sizzurp", its clear that in that particular song, they are referring to a drink made with either the (purple) promethazine/codeine syrup, OR Tussionex (yellow). Therefore, I submit that the main wikipedia article be renamed from "purple drank" to what I believe is the closest thing to an "official" coining for the beverage, "Sizzurp".

I may be able to add some citations later, if needed. Also, I believe I've listened to enough songs to be able to decipher most of the other possible ingredients for the beverage. The main one seems to be a citrus flavored beverage, such as Sprite or Lemonaid. Jolly Ranchers are often used to add flavor, since the mixture is often already sweet. This is commonly prepared with ice and in a Styrofoam cup(to chill and insulate). Any challenges to what I've posted here are welcome.

Ahh, i see so it is the "rappers" that are now defining the world of encyclopedias. I will make sure to keep my ear open when they start talking about the edownfall of the roman empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, until a few minutes ago the entire list of alternative names for this concoction was unsourced. I just now inserted citations to sources for some of the names. Users continually add more names. Names that lack reliable sources should be removed. --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of pronunciation

I mean, isn't it just "purple drink" rendered in a thick accent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but the "purple drank" spelling is often used to specifically refer to the illicit beverage, while "purple drink" could be any cheap grape beverage.09:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pimp C

Where's the heart failure part coming from? Every article I've read on his death since the tox report came back says that it was a combination of codeine and pre-existing sleep apnea. Codeine represses respiratory functions and combined with sleep apnea - in which you stop breathing during sleep - you get an accidental OD. Th 2005 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

This article's title "Puple drank" isn't appropriate for a wikipedia entry. Sure, all the street names should be mentioned and redirected to the entry, but shouldn't this be a subsection under Codeine#Recreational_use? Just like how Ice (drug) redirects to the methamphetamine article. Alvis (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - Merge the articles

1. merge LightSpeed3 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I understand both sides of the debate, and support the merge. Purple Drank is, in my opinion, technically a recreational use of codeine. As such, it should be merged into this article.

Cameron K. (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Keep the articles separate

1. I oppose the merger. Purple drank is not a form of codeine, but a drug of abuse that contains codeine and other active ingredients (notable promethazine), as well as colorant and various sweet liquids. Moreover, under its various street names, the drug is a subject of many cultural references. (For the record, I got involved in editing Purple drank because of a cultural reference to it in Nicknames of Houston. All I know about Purple Drank is what I learned here...)
   1. There is ample precedent for Wikipedia to have multiple articles about a particular recreational drug family, using street names. For example, consider the various articles about cocaine, such as Black cocaine, Brown-brown, Crack cocaine, Fishscale cocaine, Hollywood (slang), Paco (drug), and Ypadu. --Orlady (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Lean is a different drug and has different effects, as well as a large subculture. 206.55.190.99 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I oppose the merge; as opposed to the section 'recreational codeine use' which is still largely scientific, this article 'purple drank' is primarily concerned with sub-culture surrounding a particular means of ingesting recreational doses of codeine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.226.194 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose and Rename - After looking at both articles, my opinion is that the Codeine article suffers excess information about the recreational use of the drug. Someone looking for information on codeine is probably more interested in it as a drug than as a recreational drug, and the article should focus on that. It should focus more on the drug chemistry, it's history, proper usage, side effects, etc. like many other drug-related entries here. The Purple drank article would do better renamed to Recreational use of codeine or something along those lines (not exactly sure of the preferred naming convention for such articles). Then, take that section out of Codeine and merge it into the newly renamed article. Purple drank could then be a section within the article, but the article could cover all aspects of recreational (ab)use of the drug. Within the codeine article, a see also entry could point to the newly renamed article. Problem solved. (Hopefully.) --Willscrlt (Talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I just finished reading all of the example articles mentioned above for Ice (drug), [cocaine]], Black cocaine, Brown-brown, Crack cocaine, Fishscale cocaine, Hollywood (slang), Paco (drug), Ypadu, and, most importantly, the articles on Codeine and Purple drank. (Yes, it was a lot of reading about topics in which I have zero interest.) I have reached the same conclusion that 202.131.226.194 arrived at. The focus of the two articles are completely different. I really do not see how the Codeine article would be improved in any way by incorporating the largely social aspects of the Purple drank article, and vice versa. These really are similar to the Cocaine or Crack cocaine articles (each of which are completely different articles despite their nearly identical names and related topics) compared to Hollywood (slang), Paco (drug), or Ypadu. In the last three articles, the focus is on the culture using the drug, not really the drug itself. That is almost exactly the case here. And like here, I do not think that either of the cocaine article would be improved by merging the smaller cultural articles into the larger ones. I also do not think that any other combination of the drug articles would be particularly beneficial. Perhaps an all-inclusive article on the coca-leaf and cocaine socio-economic and cultural issues could pull it off. The same is true here. If someone could figure out a way to write an article that splits the socio-economic and cultural issues of ALL recreational use of codeine, then Purple Drank would be a good fit in there. Until, I think that leaving them separate as they are currently is best. I am not sure if my earlier suggestion of renaming the article is a good one or not. Given how the cocaine derivatives are named, I'm now disinclined to rename Purple Drank, unless it was to name it by a different common name. Syrup is used commonly throughout the article. I'd suggest someone run some Google stats and see what the most commonly used name is, and then go with that as the name for the article. --Willscrlt (Talk) 06:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just popping by - the merge was proposed in March and there's more opposition than support. I'm removing the merge tags. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It becomes useless information

I can't think of a reason for listing so many instances that Lil Wayne raps or references Purple Drank. One or two quotes is quite enough, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.92.211 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Concoction" vs. "Brew"

Some anon users (possibly the same user) have been changing "concoction" to "brew" in this article. No explanation has been offered for this change. My guess is that "brew" is another colloquial term for "drank", "lean", etc. This stuff is not, however, a "brew" in standard English as it is not produced by fermentation (as with beer) or by steeping a solid material in hot water (as with tea and coffee). In contrast, "concoction" is a good description of what this is. --Orlady (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons Did It?

While there is a section for mentions in music, there isn't an "in popular culture" section.

Is it worth creating one just to mention that the "Flaming Moe's" episode of "The Simpsons" is centered around a drink which also uses cough syrup as a primary ingredient?

SicTim (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, this is just unsourced trivia. Flaming Moe's indicates that the episode dealt with a non-narcotic cough syrup. It does not contain any indication of an association with codeine cough syrup. Furthermore, that episode (aired in 1991) probably predates the "syrup" culture in Houston. Do you have a reliable source (see WP:RS) indicating that the episode is a reference to "lean" or "purple drank"? --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed text that cited a "nutritionist" as a competent source

There was text in this article saying something to the extent of "a nutritionist says not to mix this drink with antidepressants..." blah. Nutritionists are not MD's, nor are they PA's, nor are they NP's, nor are they even PhD's. Nutritionists aren't anything reputable and are a the biggest joke of the medical community. They have no place making comments on such matters like drug interactions. Thus, I removed that statement. DO NOT REVERT MY EDIT ORLADY. A quick look at your talk page shows that you are incredibly biased, and incompetent. Refrain from making pointless edits for no reason. Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since a quick look at my talk page shows that I am incredibly biased and incompetent, I don't guess that I will get real far by asking you to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks, but I'll say those things anyway, because they are important. The sourced content that you have removed twice now, without leaving an edit summary to explain your intentions, said:

In November 2009 a [[Lake Charles, Louisiana]], television news station reported cautionary advice on these drinks from a hospital nutritionist who said that their ingredients might be dangerous when used in combination with [[antidepressant]]s, [[anxiolytic|anti-anxiety drug]]s, or other medications.<ref>Britney Glaser, [http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?s=11451481 Special Healthcast Report: Downer Dangers], KPLC-TV, November 6, 2009</ref>

It appears to me (hopelessly incompetent as I might be, I did learn to read) that Wikipedia is not giving medical advice (note that Wikipedia is not a source of expert advice) or citing the nutritionist as an expert. Rather, Wikipedia is citing a TV news story that reported on the nutritionist's statement[1]. This is in a paragraph telling about how the commercial products have been criticized on various grounds. Would you feel better about this if the article also quoted the part of the TV news report that says the manufacturers "tell us their products are safe"? I would think that someone who works professionally in nutrition at a hospital probably would know more about drug interactions than the public relations staff of a soft drink manufacturer, but in either case Wikipedia would be using the TV station as its source, not the people they quoted. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Until there comes a day when you can say "a homeless man on the street lectured everyone about how dangerous oxygen was to the body", nutritionists have no place making medical statements. Stop grasping for straws and stop being overly verbose in every post you make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not in the professional credentials of the people who are quoted in articles. Moreover, this quotation is not intended to provide medical advice, but merely to describe the public criticism that the commercial products have received. I agree that nonmedical personnel should not be sources of professional medical advice, but that's not what's going on in this article. Seeing that your concern is based on mistaken impressions about the nature of the quotation and the article, I am restoring the text to the article. --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is relevant to the topic. It is not medical advice, but relevant commentary from a reliable source. The aggressive tone of IP 72... is not helpful either. --Leivick (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is pretty borderline. I don't like local tv news as a source as they are not all that reliable and the opinions expressed in this context have marginal notability. It would be better to have a national news or medical source for this to confirm that this a relevant issue. In any case it would be better to hash out the arguments here on the talk page in a calm manner rather than revert war over this. If IP 72... would show good faith and not revert until consensus is achieved it would be a great step to get the ball rolling. --Leivick (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to show good faith, but the only hat your argument stands on, Orlady, is that your information is "verifiable". Whether your want to dispute that verifiability includes factual truth or not, is up to you. In my opinion, wiki is about verifiablility AND credibility. Anyone can verify anything, but that doesn't make it credible, nor does it make it correct. I could verify that my friend told his professor that the professor was wrong on a particular subject, but that does not mean that my friend was correct and the professor was wrong. Wiki is supposed to be a factual knowledgebase (ie it must be credible), which is verifiable (ie people can check to make sure that something is indeed factual). It would be one thing if the nutritionist were actually talking about codeine drinks when she made the statement that it was dangerous with other meds (even though there is no medical evidence suggesting that codiene cough syrup is dangerous to take with antidepressants. It may be dangerous with "anti-anxiety drugs" (the nutritionist used the word "anti-anxiety drugs" because she probably doesn't know what benzodiazepines are), but it is a commonly prescribed combination.. it is only dangerous in excess, like everything), but the fact of the matter is the nutritionist said that "over the counter commercial products like these are not safe with anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, and other drugs". That is horse-sh*t and you know it. The "active ingrediants" in the over-the-counter drinks are valerian root and melatonin, which aren't dangerous at all and no medical literature will back that up. That's why they are OTC.. because they pose little to no harm when mixed with regular medications. I will say it again, you may be able to verify that the newscaster reported that information, but that DOES NOT MAKE IT CREDIBLE. Local news quotations should be prohibited from wiki as they are not professional and everyone knows that local news places don't ever check their facts. I'll wait a day and then I'm reverting it if no consensus has been reached because a local news quote from a nutritionist does not belong in the wiki article. The only relevant data in that quote (whether its credible or not), is the health effects mentioned by the nutritionist.. and those points should be covered in the dangerous or side-effects or contra-indications section... not in a "Commercial news" section. This seems very cut and dry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The "factual truth" in the article is that a local TV station quoted a hospital nutritionist as saying that there might be dangers from some ingredients in these products if used in combination with various medications. Nothing in the article says whether or not her information was correct; it only says that the TV station quoted here saying these things. If there is a reliable source that declares that credible peer-reviewed research has conclusively shown that there are absolutely no risks from combining valerian root and melatonin with anxiolytics or antidepressants -- and anyone who says otherwise is irresponsible, then it would be appropriate to delete the statement entirely as a piece of nonsense that should not be perpetuated. However, contrary to your assertions that "valerian root and melatonin,... aren't dangerous at all" and that "they are OTC.. because they pose little to no harm when mixed with regular medications," this National Institutes of Health webpage about valerian root points out that valerian root is not regulated as a drug under U.S. law (i.e., it's not an OTC drug) and:

"Based on animal and human studies, valerian may increase the amount of drowsiness caused by some drugs, although this is an area of controversy. Examples include benzodiazepines such as lorazepam (Ativan®) or diazepam (Valium®), barbiturates such as phenobarbital, narcotics such as codeine, some antidepressants, and alcohol. Caution is advised while driving or operating machinery. In one human study, a combination of valerian and the beta-blocker drug propranolol (Inderal®) reduced concentration levels more than valerian alone. A brief episode of confusion was reported in one patient using valerian with loperamide (Imodium®) and St. John's wort ( Hypericum perforatum L.). An episode of agitation, anxiety, and self-injury was reported in a patient after taking valerian with fluoxetine (Prozac®) for a mood disorder (the person was also drinking alcohol). In theory, valerian may interact with anti-seizure medications, although human data is lacking. Valerian tinctures may contain high alcohol content (15-90%) and theoretically may cause vomiting if taken with metronidazole (Flagyl®) or disulfiram (Antabuse®). Valerian may interact with certain drugs metabolized by the liver or vasopressin."

'Nuf said. Regardless of the pharmacological situation, all that the current wording of the article indicates is that some people are expressing and disseminating certain criticisms and concerns about the products. --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If something isn't true, it shouldn't be on wiki, as it just adds useless information to articles. I know that valerian root isn't regulated, but it still is over the counter. It's sold as a health supplement and even if the FDA didn't classify it as "OTC", it is still for all intents and purposes OTC since anyone can go buy it over the counter at a health store. You post information that says "based on animal and human studies, valerian root *may* increase drowsiness of some drugs... *although this is an area of controversy*." You also say that one study showed that valerian with inderal reduced concentration more than just valerian alone... how do you know it wasn't the inderal (a blood pressure medicine) that was responsible? The study didn't test inderal by itself, just valerian by itself and then valerian with inderal.. for all you know the inderal by itself would have caused the same amount of drowsiness.. that's poor science. As far as the patient who took prozac with valerian, the side effects you cited are all just SSRI side effects, not valerian side effects. They can occur without the presence of another drug when an SSRI is taken. "In theory, valerian may interact with anti-seizure medications, *although human data is lacking*". "Valerian tinctures may contain high alcohol content (15-90%) and may cause vomitting if taken with metronidazole or disulfiram". Well, duh, since those drugs are directly contraindicated with alcohol because those drugs alone with alcohol will cause those reactions... without valerian root in the equation.

Basically you posted a bunch of stuff that is, at best, unverifiable and vague. Everything you posted was "it MIGHT be valerian root, but we don't know". And those assumptions are based on violating causality.. specifically the fallacy of questionable causality. (A+B), [(A+B)->C], therefore A->C. Thus, those arguments are all fallacies, and are illogical and violate causality. Correlation does not imply causation, plain and simple that data is wrong.

'Nuf said :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I quoted an official statement from the National Institutes of Health. If you want to nitpick their interpretation of the research, please go argue with the NIH, not me. As for why these substances are sold without restriction without being classified as Over-the-counter drugs, the lack of U.S. government restrictions on the sale of herbal supplements is not because of any scientific conclusion about their safety, but instead results from a political decision by U.S. Congress when it passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll argue with you instead of NIH because you're the one posting their information as evidence of something that shouldn't be in the wiki. I'm arguing with you because YOU chose to cite a poor source as evidence for a dumb claim. If research is wrong or done poorly, you can't sit there and say "I just cited them, go argue with them if the research is bad". You aren't supposed to cite whatever crappy research you can find, it defeats the entire point of credibility. As far as the distinction between herbal supplements and OTC labeled products go, I don't care at all. I don't know why you're still talking about it. Herbal supplements can be bought over the counter without a prescription. That was my point. I, again, don't care what reasoning the government has to selling herbal supplements without classifying them in a schedule. I only care that anyone can buy these products without restriction. Please explain why a quote from a nutritionist on medical interactions from a local news station should be allowed in this article? If you cannot support why it should be, and how a local news station is credible, or how a nutritionist is qualified to comment on drug interactions that are, at best, vague according to your own research, then I will be removing that quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Commercial Criticisms

Orlady continues to post poor information and cites local morning news broadcasts as her source.. which are not credible by any standard. I tried to have this discussion with her under the "Commercial Criticism" section, but she stopped responding and continues to revert edits without giving reason. Orlady, stop citing local news station morning reports as credible sources of information. I will continue to remove them. They are ridiculous and have no place in what we all want to be a credible article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.115.120 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph in contention is about criticism of "Drank" and other commercial relaxation beverages that appear to emulate purple drank. In that context, I think it is entirely appropriate to include sourced statements about the criticisms presented in a TV news story (one that was broadcast in the region where abuse of "purple drank" is particularly widespread) in which the products were criticized. The statement does not quote the TV station as an authority on health; it merely states that it aired a story in which this criticism was made. However, as I've pointed out above, there are reliable medical sources that express similar concerns about these same herbal substances.
I don't know what the anonymous user's motivation has been for repeatedly removing sourced content from that section of the article, but I do know that repeated deletion of sourced content and personal attacks (such as the paragraph above and the allegations made on my talk page) are not a particularly effective way of making a point. This kind of behavior can even cause a user's account to be blocked! --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)