Talk:Amsoil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article reads like a press release from Amsoil. Contrast this article with Royal Purple, Castrol, Pennzoil, etc. Poitin 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Poitin

It sounds too good to be true, but it isn't. I have used these products for a while now and have never had anything bad to say about AMSOIL.

The quality of Amsoil's products, good or bad, is not what is being called into question. The problem is that the article utterly lacks neutrality. I have read corporate pronouncements with less bias! Poitin 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Poitin

[edit] ================

So, what's inaccurate in the article? It seems to me that this article is stating the facts. The facts are that the other companies that you mentioned cannot claim the "firsts" that are claimed in this AMSOIL article nor can they claim the breath of product offering of AMSOIL. If you don't believe that they can claim the "firsts", ask the United States Patent and Trademark Office"--they granted AMSOIL a Registered Trademark for the phrase "The First In Synthetics".

So, since the other companies can't make the innovation claims or offer the breadth of products that AMSOIL does , does that mean that they should be removed from the AMSOIL article? That doesn't seem fair to AMSOIL.

The facts are that AMSOIL is an innovator and has the largest synthetic product offering, period. Those are the facts, is not the purpose for these articles to present the facts? If so, it would be hard to write an article that presents the facts without it seeming to promote AMSOIL. The facts themselves promote AMSOIL, it's not the writer or the article being impartial. 69.244.0.219 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of posting Amsoils U.S. commercial terms (i.e. Preferred Customer pricing)?