Talk:A2 milk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] POV
This article seems to be advertising or propaganda on behalf of the A2 Corporation, creators of this product, A2 milk. Also, the facts in the article are contentious, for example see [1]. I think that unless this page can have informative, NPOV content about this product, it should be deleted as advertising. See also A1 (milk) Thejesterx 14:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I created the article after reading about it myself, and found a fair few articles about it strewn over the web. Feel free to change it to whatever you feel is non-biased. Perhaps only referencing the NZFSA reviews would remove bias?
64.39.127.214 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think what made me feel this wasn't NPOV enough when I read it is that it doesn't mention enough that A2 milk is a product (not really a type of milk), and that the research and benefits of it are contentious. If I get a moment, I'll read more of those external links you gave, and see if I can expand it a bit. You ever tried the stuff? - Thejesterx 18:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't tried it yet as they don't seem to sell it in North America (as far as I can see). I find it an intersting possible health issue worth investigating further. Do you write many articles? This was actually my first, along with the short A1 (milk) stub I wrote, which likely needs improving upon as well. Perhaps including this article into something else like "Negative_health_effects_of_milk" (which I dont even know if it exists) would be a better course of action?
64.39.127.242 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well I think this topic does deserve its own article, but if theres some article relating to the negative health effects of milk, it should should definitely link to this one. To make this article more NPOV I think it should -
- Emphasise the fact that this is a product, developed by the A2 Corporation, and therefore much of the information about it should be considered advertising and treated skeptically
- Talk about how the benefits of A2 milk are not proven, for example as talked about in A Brief Inspection of A2 Milk
- At the moment, it seems to be overly extolling the virtues of A2 milk, without looking at the different sides of the story. - Thejesterx 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It appears A2 Corporation doesn't actually sell the milk, they sell a test to identify which protein the cow produces. They license companies to produce it from cows which are identified with maximum A2 protein.
69.12.136.96 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah yeah, I see what you mean, thanks for noticing that. The name of the company actually selling the milk here is 'A2 Australia Pty Limited' [2], and they call their product "a2 milk" - they've just licensed the logo from A2 Corporation. I just don't think A2 milk is really a "type of milk", its a trademark of the A2 Corporation which they license to milk distributors to apply to their milk, and I think the article should reflect this somehow. I'll try and phrase it more accurately. - Thejesterx 09:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Nicely done, the page now looks truly professional. Thanks for the input.
69.12.136.96 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page title
I just noticed the inconsistency between the title of this page and that of A1: this page is A2 milk, whereas A1 is A1 (milk). I think either is ok, but for consistency they should both be the same. Unless anyone responds otherwise, I will move A2 milk to A2 (milk) shortly. Thejesterx 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I guess this should stay as "A2 milk" since the A2 Corporation's trademark is for "A2 milk". Guess the page names are the best how they are. - Thejesterx 09:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy?
I find the lack of any mention of conflict or controversy in this article disturbing. The claims about the possible effects of A1 milk and hence the reason for testing for A2 are not mentioned nor is the rebutal of such claims mentioned. Reading this article I wouldn't even suspect that this is a controversial subject. The whole point of A2, and its scientific validity or not, is missed. A naive reader would be misled. Why is the information in the external links not being included in this article? SmithBlue (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
