Talk:Royal S. Copeland

message: Why isn't Copeland's responsibility for the current legal status of homeopathy in the USA mentioned? An excellent document can be found here:
* An Alternative Perspective: Homeopathic Drugs, Royal Copeland, and Federal Drug Regulation - Suzanne White Junod, Ph.D.
About the Author
* Dr. Junod is an FDA Historian at the FDA History Office, Rockville, Maryland. This article won Society for History in the Federal Government (SHFG) Thomson Prize.
Acknowledgments
* The article is was published in the Food and Drug Law Journal 55:161-183, 2001, and is reproduced with the kind permission of the author and the American Institute of the History of Pharmacy 
* The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments received on earlier drafts from Linda Horton, Peter Barton Hutt, John Parascandola, Naomi Rogers, Linda Suydam, John Swann, and James Harvey Young. 
The article is well-referenced and worth using.
* More about Copeland.
-- Fyslee / talk 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on, Fyslee...and yet, an anonymous editor continually deletes a notable fact about Copeland as well as a great NPOV reference (this book is NOT simply a pro-homeopathy book; in fact, IMO, it gives a big voice to skeptics...as such, I thought that referencing it was a perfect NPOV).  Perhaps you might UNDO him/her next time.  DanaUllmanTalk 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Some anon editors (some of whom have been TOR nodes) and now PartyOfFive are editing warring with me trying to insert a reference to a book about FDR, when a book about Copeland (the subject of THIS article) provides greater detail. I don't know why these editors are doing this, especially since the book on Copeland is NPOV and RS.  I hope that this editors would stop warring and do their homework.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaUllman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The work you are trying to cite is already present in the above reference.  If you would take a minute to look, you will see that what you keep insisting on including is damaging the other ref.  I fixed it, but please add the page number where it discusses this fact.  Place it inside of the ref markers, after the publication year.  Baegis (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Baegis, please AGF. This is an article on Copeland. I have referenced a book about HIM. You prefer to quote a book about FDR.  I say that we can quote them both.  I don't get the problem.  Yes, I see that the Copeland book is also referenced later, but the Copeland book has more than 1 fact in it and is a very good NPOV reference (IF you read this book, you'll be surprised on how "balanced" it is). Unless you give me a good reason here, I will UNDO your deletion of the Copeland reference.  DanaUllmanTalk 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete the ref; I merely fixed it so this giant pissing match between you and the anons will stop.  I refuse to AGF when you can't even see the fact that I fixed the ref (notice there are TWO listed after that fact, as opposed to ONE [two > one]) nor can you put the page number as I asked you to do so.  Man alive, it's like pulling teeth to make any progress on articles you edit!  Baegis (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copeland's responsibility