Talk:Sheepskin boots

Deckers vs Australia

I have been following this debate for a number of years now and would like to make the following observations and suggestions. 1. There is no doubt that the Australian manufacturers have been actively fighting Deckers in this section and using it for self promotion. 2. There is also no doubt that the word UGG or ugg can be and has been used as a marketing tool on thousands of websites to help sell “Generic ugg boots”. 3. Deckers do own trademarks in almost every area outside of Australia and New Zealand and have now defended their marks in several countries in various courts of law. 4. Deckers have the vast majority of worldwide sales and are responsible for the vast increase in these boots sales due to their marketing efforts. 5. Since Deckers sales have increased so much in recent years, dozens if not hundreds of companies and individuals have jumped on the bandwagon and used the internet to tout that they are selling “real Ugg boots from Australia”. In doing so they are breaking international trademark laws and put their poor customers in risk of having their order confiscated when it arrives in the US, Europe etc. 6. None of these Australian companies complaining about the name can legally sell generic “ugg boots” in any store (wholesale) outside of Australia if the word ugg is on the product or packaging. 7. While Deckers has considerable internet sales, it is only a very small portion of their overall sales. Considering that Deckers dominate this category and that, while their sales are impressive, the larger portion of sales come from their wholesale business which doubles at retail. Therefore, the market share of this style of boots for Deckers is by far more than all the websites selling these boots and complaining about what is now a brand that is known all over the world.

While I agree about having a smaller section dedicated to “Ugg boots from Australian and new Zealand”, there is massive and overwhelming use of the truly generic term “Sheepskin Boots”. This term is used by Deckers to generically describe this style and by most of these Australian companies that are fighting this loosing battle over Deckers trademarks. Additionally, there is a substantial amount of legitimate “Brands” that both wholesale and retail sheepskin boots all over the world including Australian and New Zealand. These brands include, EMU, Koolaburra, Bearpaw, Aussie Dogs, Warmbat, Green Lizard, Love from Australia, Koalabi etc, etc. I would dare to speculate that their sales are considerably more than the opportunistic internet retailers that are still bitching and moaning about the name ugg.

One look at the Ugg N Rugs operation would confirm that many of these are nothing more than a small cottage industry that is pissed off that they have missed the boat and that many of their boots are returned by customers who actually wanted Deckers UGG boots. Look at their disclaimers in their sites to confirm this.

In summary, I hope that a the editors will create a “Sheepskin Boots” section as it seems unfair for all these other legitimate Brands to be labeled as “Ugg boots” or “Ugg like” as it unfairly places Deckers in the position of the original and the others as copies. This seems like a fair compromise and allows any other individuals or companies to go out and sell their goods through their own merit and not by falsely misleading the consumers who are free to choose other legitimate sheepskin boot brands, Deckers included, without being confused over what this name means here or there. --Illume1999 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am putting together a main category titled “Sheepskin Boots” and welcome the editor’s help in doing so. The largest worldwide trend in footwear is Sheepskin boots and has been for the last 8 years. While I do understand that in Australia they are referred to commonly as “ugg boots”, Australia is only a fraction of the worldwide population.

It is not logical for Wikipedia to only have two options: 1. Ugg boots – what sheepskin boots are called in Australia 2. UGG a worldwide brand owned by a single corporation.

It defies all of Wikipedia’s principles to only acknowledge that for 99.9% of the world, this category has no generic term to describe this style of footwear.

If UGG is a brand name in 99.9% of the world, as this community has ultimately confirmed, then what is the generic term for this style of footwear? The answer is of course “Sheepskin Boots”.

I have compiled a list of just some of the companies that refer to this style of boots as “Sheepskin Boots”

Sheepskin Boots: UGG, EMU, Koolaburra, Aussie Dogs, Warmbat, Green Lizard Australia, Love from Australia, Koalabi, Ausiie Boots Australia, Shepherd, Jumbuck, Overland, Shoo Republic, Seekin, Celtic, Morlands, Mou,

Sheepskin “Lined” Boots: Lamo, Sketchers, Chooka, Bearpaw, Old Friend, Staheekum, Minnetonka, Ricardo B.H., Lugz, Brodie, Flurries, Cloud Nine,

Sheepskin Boots are a worldwide phenomenon and have been in existence in some shape or form since the dawn of time. Let’s not only reference one fraction of the world population or a single company and deny the existence of this correct and totally legitimate generic term. I am suggesting that this becomes the landing page with sub headings as follows: • Ugg boots, a style of sheepskin boot that originated in Australia and New Zealand • UGG Australia a trademarked brand name for footwear, bags, clothing and other goods Lets all work together on this one to put together an impartial landing page for Sheepskin Boots.

--Illume1999 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Generic Name for Australian Ugg boots for the rest of the world

It appears that this article is taking shape however, it is very difficult to get some consensus here as the article was so edited over night. I had only put out a first draft and had appealed for help in writing this article however, the references to "Australian sheepskin boots" were nearly all replaced with "ugg boots" and now we have an article that doesn't mention them at all.

The big question still remains, if 20 million people in Australian know the "Australian sheepskin boot style" as an "ugg boot", what shall the rest of the World's 6.908 billion people call them? And before another Australian editor says "ugg boots", that term is trademarked and cannot be used to describe the style "legally" outside of Australia. Its not an oppinion, this is an absolute fact. Should this ever change, that is a different matter but as of now, and for quite some time, this is the reality of the situation.

If this community doesn't like to call the style "sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots", even though this is the term used today by international and Australian manufacturers, Industry buyers and consumers alike, what shall the "generic" term be for this style that is currently the biggest selling style of boots in the world?--Illume1999 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can this section os something like it be included in the new "Sheepskin boots" page?

Australian Sheepskin Boots

Australian Sheepskin boots today are one of the most popular trends of casual footwear and over the last decade, global sales for sheepskin boots have grown exponentially. One particular style that originated in Australia and is attributed to the Australian Surfing culture is the “Classic” Australian sheepskin boot (also known in Australia and New Zealand as ugg boots. The UGG brand is largely attributed to the dramatic increase in popularity and has successfully won over celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey who has featured the UGG brand sheepskin boots one of her favorite things for the last 5 years. Some other popular sheepskin boot brands are EMU, Koolaburra, Warmbat, Aussie Dogs, Green Lizard Australia, Love from Australia, Koalabi, Ausiie Boots Australia, Shepherd, Jumbuck, Overland, Shoo Republic, Seekin, Celtic, Morlands and Mou.

--Illume1999 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Content forking

I've reverted the article back to the version written by Colonel Warden and RJHall. Duplicating content from ugg boots is an unacceptable content fork per WP:Content forking. As such, I've removed the duplicate material and returned it into an article about sheepskin boots in general. However, I've also added a paragraph about ugg boots, as it makes sense to include them in any general discussion of sheepskin boots - I've tried to keep it as neutral as I can, though, so hopefully that is ok. - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reverting. As the Ugg topic seems disputed, we should not include any material about it which is not well-sourced. I have removed the sentence about the trademark/generic status because there was no source and, as I understand it, the matter is still under legal dispute. I'd like to see something about the slipper-like nature of the product. It seems that people have been using them as if they are true walking, winter boot but finding that they lack the design and structure for this. See Ugg-style boots 'damage feet due to lack of support, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about ugg boots, it is about the name that they are called everywhere outside of Australia "Sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots". There is a link to Deckers trademarks on the ugg boots page which shows they are all very live and current but this is not the place to discuss trademark issues, as that is more than covered on the various "Ugg" pages. Apart from a mention that "Ugg boots" is the common name in Australia, the content here needs to be about "Australian sheepskin boots"--Illume1999 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, your edit is very nice and you have well researched this and I thank you for the time that you have invested to get this working. Could we all agree to do the following?

1. Title the section on this style to "Australian sheepskin boots" (as per rough below)

2. Move the design section from the "ugg boots" page to this page to avoid any duplication.

3. Leave the "ugg boots" page as is and leave that "very detailed" history there where it belongs

4. Put back into the this section the other "global brands"

5. Add see also, ugg boots, UGG Australia

Australian sheepskin boots

Along with their ability to provide warmth in cooler climates, sheepskin boots with the fleece on the inside are both comfortable and have the ability to draw moisture away from the skin.[10] Thus this style of sheepskin boot became popular with Surfers in Australia, where they are known as "ugg boots". Outside of Australia and New Zealand, the style was popularized by Deckers Outdoor Corporation through their UGG Australia brand, and became a successful fashion trend.[10]

Other popular sheepskin boot brands are EMU, Koolaburra, Warmbat, Aussie Dogs, Green Lizard Australia, Love from Australia, Koalabi, Ausiie Boots Australia, Shepherd, Jumbuck, Overland, Shoo Republic, Seekin, Celtic, Morlands and Mou.

Design

Note - move entire design section from "ugg boots" page and insert here.(change "ugg boots" to "sheepskin boots" in the copy)

Cheaper Versions

Some variations of Australian sheepskin boots have also been made by combining leather and sheepskin lining which is a much cheaper process and usually sell for much less than pure sheepskin boots. The Bearpaw Company uses this process exclusively on all of their sheepskin boots. There are also synthetic boots. Although derided as "fake" by some in the industry,[23] their lower price made them appealing to large retail chains such as Wall-Mart.

Foot Problems

In 2009 American podiatrist Ed Chairman raised concern that the regular wearing of Sheepskin boots by UGG and other manufacturers could be deleterious to foot health due to the lack of arch support.[25] Some companies have improved their design and have added arch support and other advanced features to their products (3 new references below)

See also:

ugg boots

UGG Australia

(refferences to be added -)

1. http://www.emuaustralia.com/story.asp (Click on features and benefits)

2. http://www.warmbat.com/en/features

3. http://www.greenlizardaustralia.com/sheepskin_boots/products.html

I feel that this would be a very nice section and it would leave the "ugg boots" page dedicated to just information on this style in Australia, its history and trademark issues while generic things like design are on this main page. This would leave Decker's UGG page about that company and also its various trademark issues.--Illume1999 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• What's needed to support such accounts is good sources. I just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and they have Ugg/Ug under the heading of Ugh, describing it as "A proprietary name for a type of soft, sheepskin boot." and saying that the origin is "Probably the name Ugh of a series of cartoon characters (see Alphabetical Index Constituent Particulars of Trade Marks 1966 (Canberra 1967) IX. 73).". So, I'm inclined to call them Ugh boots here as the OED entry indicates that the term is well-established in the English language. Companies which make this style of boot might be listed if they are notable and have their own articles. Lesser companies may not warrant such treatment - it depends on the sources. And, generally, an extended treatment of the trademark disputes belong on the specific pages which cover them. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You have stated that the Oxford English dictionary confirms that it is "a proprietary name for a type of soft, sheepskin boot" so, the "Generic" not "Proprietary" name outside of Australia that all major companies, including Deckers, use is "Australian sheepskin boots". We have the propriety name covered on the UGG Australia page and ugg boots page.

"A trademark or trade mark or trade-mark[1] is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization, or other legal entity to identify that the products or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities."

This article is about the generic name for this style that is used to describe this style of boots. It is not possible to refer to this style, anywhere that it is trademarked, as an ugh, ugg or ug boot as long as it is a trademark (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1834017/UGGglobaltms-pdf-march-31-2010-3-03-pm-88k?da=y). --Illume1999 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The OED refers to it as a "proprietary name." What does that mean, exactly? It means that the name is the property of someone. It is trademarked. The term "sheepskin boot" is the generic term used for the same item, used in nearly every country in the world. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On the ugg boots article's talk page, I tried to point out to you that this article would only be viable if it was to cover the full use of the term "sheepskin boots", rather than just copying content from the existing article to this. Colonel Warden's work covered what I argued then - that there are many types of sheepskin boots, one of which is known in its country of origin as ugg boots. Thus this article is now (correctly) about sheepskin boots in general, and ugg boots are listed as one of these types. - Bilby (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Added back the content acknowledging the most popular generic name outside of Australia "Australian sheepskin boots". Will leave design information in the ugg boot section--Illume1999 (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Google disagrees with you: it gives about 25,000,000 hits for "ugg boots" and about 700,000 hits for "Australian sheepskin boots"; therefore the most popular name worldwide is "ugg boots" and they should be referred to as such as per WP:COMMONNAME. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, the same Googlefight stunt was tried over at WP:AFD. I'm going to use the same antiaircraft gun to shoot down this argument. First, how can you tell from Google whether each individual page was talking about "ugg boots" (the generic term used only in Australia and New Zealand) or "UGG boots" (the brand name owned by Deckers trademarked in nearly every other country in the world)? Second, have you done your Google search in any language other than English? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The article on Wellington boot is a good example of how this sheepskin boots page should be. It acknowledges the history and "Other common Names" It goes on and lists and acknowledges all the popular names in several countries "Usage and terminology in other countries". This is the approach we need to this "Main sheepskin boots page"--Illume1999 (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wellington boot article is an interesting example - I'd see it as the equivalent of "ugg boots", in that it is created under the original name, but then acknowledges that in much of the rest of the world they are called something different. In the same sense, "ugg boots" is created under the original name, and acknowledges that the name is not necessarily used in the rest of the world. As a comparison with sheepskin boots it doesn't work as well, as this article is focused on a range of different styles using the material, not the name. I note that Rubber boot, which is closer to this article, is a redirect to Wellington boot. - Bilby (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a parallel between the "wellington boot" and sheepskin boots. They both have a long history, they have changed throughout the years (from leather to rubber for the wellington) and are today known by the most popular "generic" name. If wellington boots were a brand, that would not be the most popular name today and Wikipedia would refer to them by their generic name and also refer to the brand. The same is for Ugg boots, originated in Australia, known in Australia as Ugg boots but the rest of the world calls them "sheepskin boots" unless they are from Deckers and then they are called Uggs. Other boots with the name "ugg" on them that do not come from Deckers are commonly refered to outside of Australia as "Fugs" or Fake Ugg boots.--Illume1999 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

First, as far as I am aware, they are not referred to as fugs. They may well be as a slang term, but that doesn't constitute a name in the same sense as "ugg boots". Second, your argument doesn't hold, I'm afraid. Wellington boot is not the most popular generic name, as per the article. In most regions outside of the UK they seem to be called different names. But as they were invented in the UK, and are a UK style of boot, we use the UK name. As ugg boots were invented in Australia, and are an Australian style of boot, we use the Australian name. We also, as per wellington boots, acknowledge any other names, but generally there aren't any other names that specifically refer to the ugg boots style, only the far more generic "sheepskin boots" which, as has been argued elsewhere, refers to more than just ugg boots. I think what you're arguing is that we should rename wellington boot as rubber boots, in order to match what the article suggests is the most common name, but that wouldn't really work.

If you want to merge ugg boots with this article you're welcome to start a discussion, once the AfD is over, but I can't see that you'll get consensus for the merger. The content is such that it is better treated as a separate article. Otherwise, we seem to have a viable approach here - talk about boots made from sheepskin in this article, and link to specific instances as they gain articles of their own.

At any rate, we seem to be arguing in circles. - Bilby (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, of course I am not suggesting to change wellington boots to rubber boots. I am using this as a reference that may be a good platform for sheepskin boots which is being widely accepted by the way. Ugg boots would be the common name in Australian and New Zealand. For the rest of the world, the common name is "Sheepskin boots" or specifically "Australian sheepskin boots". As far as Fugg boots today, here are some references to "fugs" (fake UGGs) which is now popular culture, outside of Australia of course.

• http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php?word=fug
• http://news.scotsman.com/health/Beware-the-Fuggs-40That39s-fake.6153870.jp
• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuggs
• http://www.luuux.com/fashion/fuggs-fake-uggs
• http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/27741

and there is even a Tee shirt http://www.zazzle.com/wait_so_if_fake_uggs_ar_called_fugs_are_rea_tshirt-235110943924399954 --Illume1999 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we continue to argue in circles - you don't seem to get the point I'm making, and while I think I understand your point, I disagree. There's not much value in continuing this, I'm afraid. Short version - this article is currently about sheepskin boots in general, and you'll need consensus to merge the content from ugg boots, which I doubt will happen. - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "Fug boots"

I have found some great pictures of "Fug boots" and a link that should be added to the sheepskin boots references. http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/node/1885 http://www.theaerodrome.com/help/glossary.php?pageNum_glossary=6&totalRows_glossary=86 --Illume1999 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The second link doesn't seem to be a picture, but I added a link to the first as part of an "External links" section. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The end of AfD

Thanks to everyone for your participation in AfD. Even though we often disagree, I respect your opinions and your right to have them, and I am grateful for the courteous expression of those opinions. This subject somehow (probably through a talkboard) attracted the attention of a lot of new Wikipedia editors, easily identified by their red names at the ends of their posts. "New" does not necessarily mean "single purpose," because the first edit (or handful of edits) from any new account can appear single-purpose, and the SPA tag was applied a little too vigorously by a partisan editor at AfD. Please remember WP:AGF.

I've had email discussions with a lot of you regarding your votes in AfD, and your purpose in editing Wikipedia. Everyone denied being an agent for a manufacturer, but actions speak a lot louder than words. I am convinced that there are at least one agent for Deckers, and at least two for Australian manufacturers, working on this article and on Ugg boots. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, but it can easily go astray. Please see WP:COI.

I am especially grateful to Donama for changing his vote at the last minute from "Delete" to "Keep." The discussion is here: [1] Let's all work together to create a genuinely NPOV article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We should all realise that at least one user who voted in that AfD has now been blocked as a sockpuppet and others were flagged as likely meatpuppets. Also please use the pronoun 'her' for me, P&W. Cheers, Donama (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We should also realize that the four other accounts were reported by Checkuser as "unrelated" and since so many of them are new accounts, it's entirely possible that letting them edit for a few months will disprove the meatpuppet charge. Meanwhile charges of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or COI might be arguable on the other side of the fence. Let's all take a deep breath and just try to improve these articles together. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

New accounts dont appear at AFD discussions they are always invited or invented, Illume invented one making claims of being the owner of a manufacturer even named that person. Your comments clearly speak of WP:CANVASS violations at best and meatpuppets of yourself at worst, irregardless each of those accounts have been tainted by your comments. If you think theres sockpuppetry by other editors please request a check at WP:SPI. Gnangarra 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this has been well discussed. If the opinion is that this entry should be about all forms of Sheepskin boots then I commend the others for their candor. While our opinions about how "UGG" is used differ, I think this discussion has worked out very well. I'm not well liked on this page but I think this is positive work. Cheers.--Factchk (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sour grapes I think, after the AfD failed from the guy who submitted it. I will point out that no evidence of WP:CANVASS violations has ever been presented. I suspect there's WP:COI going on in both camps. I will assume for the sake of WP:CIV and WP:AGF that the COI editors on both sides balance each other out. I also suspect there's a few talkboards somewhere on the Internet where these articles have become an item. One talkboard could be the home of fans of UGG brand boots, or it could be fans of some celebrity who wears them such as Kate Hudson or Sarah Jessica Parker. That's probably where we got all these newbie accounts. On the flip side, I suspect that the Australian sheepskin manufacturers' association has a talkboard of their own, and that may be where we got a few of the Aussies. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Further improvement

So where do we go from here? How can we further improve this article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I had posted some information on 2500 year old sheepskin boots and a link to the Discovery magazine source but Colonel Warden deleted this with the comment "So". I think this needs to be reinstated. The "see also" section was pointing to both Ugg boots and UGG Australia but was again changed and pointed to Fur clothing which is not really related and so these should be put back. The bottom of the page categories show boots and sheep but should be boots and sheepskin which is far more related. The reference to the American Hana Barbara cartoon caveman character "Ugh" seems to be totally unrelated and against all known theories of the origin of the name in Australia. Whats more this character was actually barefoot ( http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/tmimages/cgi-bin/oracle_get_tm_images.pl?202978 ). I also think a page for EMU Australia should be built and more about the recent explosion of sheepskin boots in today's popular culture. --Illume1999 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to straighten out the organization. Right now we have several topics within a single topic heading. Perhaps we should break this down further so that folks could access specific sections with speed?--Factchk (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Factchk, this is definitely needed. As the Aussies are totally opposed to this article and have fought to try to keep it out, I suggest we nominate it as a "stub" and bring in other editors. There is much history and a lot of current information that needs to be added as well as pictures of "Sheepskin boots today" and their current popularity throughout the world (not just how they are viewed in Australia). --Illume1999 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have indented everyone's posts in this section to keep them segregated. Illume, please do me a favor and just add whatever material you have to the article mainspace. Don't worry about organization. Just open your spigot and let it flow, but make sure that all of your statements are reliably sourced. I'll be watching and whenever you add something, I'll do the organizing into appropriate sections; and I may click on your links and make a few corrections here and there as needed. I will also watch out for such things as spelling, grammar, punctuation and encyclopedic style. Once you've got all the material into the article mainspace and I've got it roughly organized and edited to about a "B" standard, we can worry about the fine tuning.

I'm not so sure that nominating it as a "stub" is appropriate, particularly with the new material that you're about to add — you've indicated it is fairly substantial. A 500-word article cannot reasonably be described as a stub. But there are other avenues we have available at Wikipedia to bring in experienced editors. Allow me to explore those for you; and if you're dissatisfied with the results in a few weeks, we'll try something else OK? Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a more complete section that was fair and factual but it was reverted within minutes. I think this version is fairly close to what this section should be.--Illume1999 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC) be.

The difficulty is that you continue to add unsourced material, relying on original research, that has factual inaccuracies, is written from an UGG Australia POV, and, where it is correct, is already covered in ugg boots. At any rate, there is no need to duplicate content covered elsewhere, especially when the other coverage provides the full context. - Bilby (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is of actual encyclopaedic value in the section you added largely duplicates material from Ugg boots. Wikipedia readers should be assumed to have the intelligence and ability to follow a hyperlink. I have made some superficial fixes to your material to make it more neutral and less Deckers POV but it really needs the sort of substantial overhaul done to it which I do not have the time to perform. Daveosaurus (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of properly indenting your comments to distinguish them. Failing to indent or "thread" them is mentioned as a form of tendentious editing and I don't want you to be accused of that. No, this is an encyclopedia for the entire world, not just Australia and New Zealand. Outside of Australia and New Zealand they're called "sheepskin boots" and the Deckers product is called UGG boots. Sometimes we may see references to all sheepskin boots as "UGG boots," but that's a popularization of the brand name ... in much the same way that all carbonated soft drinks are called Cokes and all blue jeans are called Levis.

Also, I have the pleasure/burden of working on the Barack Obama articles, where information is often duplicated between one article and another in the series. Some of the articles in the Obama series will dwell on certain material at greater length than others, as appropriate considering the topic of each specific article. So that's a common practice here at Wikipedia. We will see the same material in various forms, and at various lengths, at UGG Australia, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Uggs-N-Rugs, Ugg boots and Sheepskin boots, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Use "citation needed" tags if you must; rearrange some of the material if you must; but please don't delete it, unless you can make a case that it is negative info about a living person per WP:BLP. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no call to duplicate content here, that is already covered in three separate articles, in order to turn this article into POV fork. On top of that, you haven't addressed the OR problems - the entire first paragraph was OR, the second a paragraph was largely the same, and other than including the most tortured sentence I've read in ages, the third section contains the statement "One of the first major manufacturers of sheepskin boots in Australia was Shane Stedman", which is patently false.

However, the real problem brings this back to the POV fork. The only reason this article survived AfD was that Colonel Warden converted it to a generic article about sheepskin boots. Had it continued to take the form that Illume1999 and you continue to change it to, I'd argue that it would have had no hope of making it through the AfD. There's a reason - we have specific policies about forks such as this. If you want to change Ugg boots to be called Australian sheepskin boots you can start a rename discussion there, but, (as we're both aware), you are very unlikely to succeed. Trying to duplicate the content here in order to sidestep such a discussion and to have an article that doesn't call them ugg boots is entirely the wrong way forward. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The message was already correctly threaded as per [2]. Your edit made it look as if I was replying to Bilby whereas I was actually replying to yourself. That is dishonest behaviour on your part. Do not alter other people's talk page comments again. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Spare us all your false accusations and your righteous indignation, Dave. I'm just trying to distinguish one person's comments from another's. I clearly announced that intention, not once but twice, so how could it be dishonest behavior? And you didn't even add a linebreak before your equally-indented post.[3] Per your own link, "Note that comments are displayed closer together when indented by the same amount .... This can cause confusion to readers glancing through a conversation thread, since several multi-line comments can be mistaken for a single comment. To produce normal paragraph spacing, add a linebreak first[.]"

So don't accuse me of being dishonest, Dave. Your own link clearly states that posts like yours "cause confusion."

And Bilby, you don't WP:OWN the article. You'd "argue that it would have had no hope of making it through the AfD," but I would argue the opposite. Shane Stedman was indeed one of the first MAJOR manufacturers since he introduced mass production. The earlier efforts appear to have been small, family-owned and operated shops. I'm well aware that nearly every Wikipedia editor from Australia and New Zealand who has worked on these articles deeply resents (and I mean DEEPLY resents) the way that Stedman and Deckers have capitalized on a boot style invented in Australia; but before they invested their hard work and their millions of dollars and got rich off of it, it was a boot style that Australians were ashamed of, that they threw under the bed the moment warm weather arrived, with total production of (my estimate) no more than a few thousand pairs a year. And now that worldwide sales are approaching $1 billion a year, you want to claim that it's a national treasure? Please.

If you have POV objections to this material, rewrite it to make it less POV. If you have OR/RS objections, add the tags. But don't delete it again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could try addressing the concerns regarding the material you want to add? - Bilby (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who added it. That was Illume1999 and I don't have access to the same source material. So I would respectfully look to Illume1999 to provide the sourcing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do not wish to be criticised for editing other people's talk page comments, then do not edit other people's talk page comments. It is as simple as that.

Also note the following from the link given: "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." Daveosaurus (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't edit the content of your comment, Dave, and I do not care for your false accusation of dishonesty. It's an unfair criticism and I do not notice anyone coming to your defense in this matter. Maybe you should read WP:DBAD. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, why not discuss each point so we all can collectively work on this together? List your questions and I will back them up.

The small Australian resellers are trying to deny UGG Australia's role in making this boot what it is today and may not agree to anything that is written here. From the Australian Sheepskin Association: "Don’t forget that most of these small Australian businesses operate on the interned where search terms are the ONLY way to be found. So developing a new name was just not a solution."

Deckers Billion dollar sales (at 80% wholesale so the retail number are much more) dwarfs the largest Australian company, Luda Productions, as they claim sales of approximately $10,000,000 per annum or 1% of Deckers sales. Every major manufacturer outside of Australia (and many inside of Australia too) calls this style "sheepskin boots" and it is just not right for Australian editors to keep denying the facts!--Illume1999 (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Illume, as you can see there is a concern about sourcing. I warned you near the start of this section of Talk, "Make sure that all of your statements are reliably sourced." Please provide citations where Bilby has indicated in the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix, nearly all of the statements are out of the current references but here they are again. I am sorry that I do not know how to add them to the reference list at the bottom.

Also, I though that the quote from BB&T Capital Markets analyst Scott Krasik was quite profound and should be added to al least the popularity and possibly also referenced in the brand section of the article as the comparison to Apple reiterated the point I have been making for some time.

Citations

Ugg boots / Australian sheepskin boots

has an estimated 120 million sheep... http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/agriculture/sheep-wool/index.html#howmany

however, it's the "Classic Style," believed to have first appeared in the Australian surfing culture in the 1960s that spread throughout Australia, New Zealand and eventually the world....does anyone seriously doubt this statement?

Popularity

Demand - "Our sales have been increasing 10 per cent a year for the past 10 years, but we found last season that there has been huge demand for our product in Australia and overseas". http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/12/1078594562069.html

Deckers - “It’s one of the great success stories within the consumer category,” says BB&T Capital Markets analyst Scott Krasik, a follower of footwear, apparel and specialty retail since 2003. “You can put it on a level with Apple in terms of the attention the brand has brought.” http://magazine.wsj.com/features/behind-the-brand/the-golden-fleece/

Brands One of the first major manufacturers of sheepskin boots in Australia was Shane Stedman, who in 1971 began mass producing the classic style of Australian sheepskin boots.[citation needed] Stedman trademarked the term "Ugh-Boots" in Australia in 1971.[citation needed] http://www.babelgum.com/114094/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugg-boot.html

“It’s one of the great success stories within the consumer category,” says BB&T Capital Markets analyst Scott Krasik, a follower of footwear, apparel and specialty retail since 2003. “You can put it on a level with Apple in terms of the attention the brand has brought.” http://magazine.wsj.com/features/behind-the-brand/the-golden-fleece/ --Illume1999 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have a few ideas to improve the article. I don’t think this article is nearly organized enough. I think we need to be assured of what qualifies as a sheepskin boot. Must the whole upper be constructed from twin-faced sheepskin or can the interior simply be lined with fleece? Does the fleece even need to be attached? We could divide it into two sections, All-Sheepskin and Sheepskin lined, with examples for both.

I also think the sources for Australian sheepskin boots are insufficient. The OED is unavailable to anyone without a subscription and the how is someone supposed to verify a surfing magazine from 1969? There's no way of even knowing what is on that page.--Factchk (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Its time for the Aussies to either compile their "facts" and post it on their site (Australian Sheepskin Association) or stop interfering so we can get down to an accurate article about a worldwide fashion phenomenon "sheepskin boots" (see my post on the ugg boots talk page).

I tried to cover sheepskin lined boots in the very first version but of course, every version that I post is usually deleted in its entirety. It would seem only fair to break up the popular sheepskin boots section into twin faced sheepskin and sheepskin lined versions. --Illume1999 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

I have to admit to being confused. Illume1999 has been insisting that people will come here looking for information on "australian style sheepskin boots". We have an article on that style called "ugg boots". Therefore, standard policy is to direct people, using a hatone, to the specific article covering what they are interested in, or to provide a disambig page. Therefore, why is there a problem with a hatnote that does this? Especially given that it also directs them to UGG Australia? - Bilby (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, this article was created for the worldwide community that reffer to this style as "Sheepskin boots" not what they are called in Australia. Ugg boots outside of Australian means Deckers UGG boots. This has been debated and this Article is now here and is just a simple fact that we cannot keep refering to the minority nor a single brand.

If you have something positive to add, please do so but please look outside of your shores at a realistic view of the world. You will not find a single legitimate international company calling this style "Ugg boots" other than Deckers and multiple legal rulings have all ruled in Deckers favour thus adding a legal president to this debate once and for all. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, we've been through this argument before. I don't see much point revisiting it.

In regard to the hatnote: you have argued that people interested in the content of the "ugg boot" article will come here, not knowing that our title on the style is called "ugg boots". Thus the policy is to direct readers to the article that they will be looking for. There are four ways we can do that: we can have this as a redirect, which we used to do, we can turn "sheepskin boots" into a disambig page, we can add a "main article" tag to the summary section, or we can add a hatnote. I'll give the main article tag a shot instead, as that may better fit with your idea of how this should work, as it means readers will only see it when they reach your summary of the ugg boots article. - Bilby (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, your conclusion is incorrect. I have never argued that people looking for information on ugg boots will come here. Previously this article was redirected to ugg boots which was not correct for two main reasons; a. not all sheepskin boots are ugg boots and b. the name has changed outside of australia for the classic style and is internationally referred to as "sheepskin boots' or "Australian sheepskin boots". --Illume1999 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're playing a semantics game. What you seem to have said is that people looking for the content contained in the ugg boots article would come here. :) Otherwise, why duplicate the content from there to this article? - Bilby (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Classic style

Currently, we have a line that reads:

One distinct sheepskin style that originated in Australia and is attributed to the Australian surfing culture is the "classic" style.

This seems odd to me. First, outside of product catalogs, I've never heard of the "classic style" used to refer to ugg boots, and then only in relation to a particular product in their line. Second, the context being used there is the Australian context, that of the style in Australia, as created by Australians. Thus it seems that rather than tortuously trying to avoid saying "ugg boots", why don't we just say ugg boots? And yes, I know we'll get the usual "99% of people outside of Australia call them something else", but a) those 99% of people don't call them "classic style" either, and b) this line is specifically referring to the Australian context, in particular, where I think we would agree that ugg boot is the term in common usage. - Bilby (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Almost every manufacturer seems to refer to this style with the flat sole as a "classic" and while there are today many different styles in what you would call an "ugg boot", no matter where you live, this one style is always referred to as a classic. I think either ugg boots or sheepskin boots is too general in for this sentence as it was referring to this specific "distinct" style that was used by the surfers.--Illume1999 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there was ever a "distinct style used by surfers". That line seems to be referring to ugg boots, not a specific, limited style of ugg boot. In looking at what the various product catalogs call classic, I'm seeing ankle-height boots, thigh-height boots, and variations in design that seems to suggest that they don't mean one particular design. Instead it seems more to refer to their range - the classic style is the basic style they sell, rather than something referring back to a consistent design used by surfers. - Bilby (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it is certainly more specific and is always aligned with the surfers. I dont think there were many version back when it was first made popular with the surfers and it is the style that they first used.--Illume1999 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My problem is that we don't know what the style was, and there isn't sufficient consistency in product catalogs to tell. What we do know, and is agreed on, is that the style was called ugg boots by the surfers, not "classic style". So it seems we should use their terminology, as it is the only one that seems appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Brands

It seems odd to delete several large companies such as EMU, Overland and Celtic and add Uggs-n-Ruggs. EMU is a multi national company that wholesales its products all over the world whilst Uggs-N-Rugs only sells in Australia through their website and do not wholesale. Just because they don't have a section on Wikipedia should not deny their existence. I feel that all three companies deserve a page or at least a mention here for now. --Illume1999 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning them in general, but as they don't have articles I'm not sure why we would include particular brands and not include others. Notability isn't a concern, but given the lack of criteria I went with "has an article". If others want to do it differently I'm fine with that. - Bilby (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to only reference "global brands" here other wise in a few hours when the Aussies wake we will have a plethora of "ugg this" and "ugg that" and as they cannot sell outside of Australia, it would be pointless. --Illume1999 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Define "global brands" is near impossible. If you want to restrict the ones being added, we'll need more specific criteria that isn't open to interpretation. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

From brand. A global brand is one which is perceived to reflect the same set of values around the world. Global brands transcend their origins and create strong enduring relationships with consumers across countries and cultures. They are brands sold in international markets...--Illume1999 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So you woud include anyone who sells their products overseas? That's where we hit problems - most manufactures will have an international market through online sales. I'm not trying to keep people out specifically, but in the past I've seen these things grow uncontrollably. So if we can have some set of rules up front we can avoid the problem. - Bilby (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots

If this article mentions ugg boots, they should be called ugg boots, not "Australian sheepskin boots" and, as an article about uggs, regardless of what you call them, already exists it is content forking (WP:FORK) to duplicate or put an alternate story about them here. Ugg boots are NOT known as "Australian sheepskin boots" internationally. In common parlance, they are correctly called ugg boots. The issue is that the Deckers trademark prevent them being advertised as such. Thus the "Australian sheepskin boots" section needs to be renamed and should only summarise the ugg boots article, not build upon it. That activity belongs in the ugg boos article. Donama (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Donama, that's your POV and being from Australia you are bias. http://www.stylelist.com/2011/01/18/health-hazards-festering-in-your-sheepskin-winter-boots/ --Illume1999 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the rest of the world, Donama, they're called sheepskin boots. If they're called UGG boots, it's a reference to a particular brand, not the style or construction. And I know you wouldn't like it if we explained it that way. This encyclopedia serves the whole world, not just Australia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the English language wikipedia and the foremost authority on this language is the OED. They have these boots listed under the heading of Ugh boots. We should follow this authority to avoid the trademark issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting. So to do this according to the OED, we should then redirect "ugg boots" to "Ugh boots", the correct spelling of the word. Mention that it is a proprietary name as per OED (the foremost authority on this language) and add the possible naming reference for "ugh" to the American cartoon character. As Deckers own the name in the UK (proprietary name), this may not be a very popular move and the Australian sheepskin association editors will no doubt reverse it so that they can continue to use that page, and this page, to try to convince the world that they sell UGG boots too! --Illume1999 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Australians call anything with sheepskin on it "ugg boots" http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/7936825/high-heeled-ugg-boots-represent-australia Outside of Australia, UGG is the brand and sheepskin boots or Australian sheepskin boots are the generic terms http://shoes.about.com/od/boots/a/ugg.htm --Illume1999 (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? Only ugg style boots are called "ugg boots" in the linked article. The sheepskin shawl is called a "shrug" not uggs. Also, About.com is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Donama (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So a 10cm heel, pointed toe is an "ugg style"? http://sydney-central.whereilive.com.au/photos/gallery/miss-universe-australia-2011-lingerie-parade-high-heeled-ugg-boots-photographs-by-melvyn-knipe/ Again, I maintain that Australians call any boot or shoe with sheepskin on it an ugg. The undeniable point here is that in Australia, ugg today is not a specific style, it is the generic name that Aussies call all sheepskin boots. --Illume1999 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 1980s Australian TV ad that calls them "Sheespkin boots" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfLy6N7QCA&feature=related This feature about the UGG brand refers to the boots generically as "Sheepskin boots" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lev4VkktHp4 --Illume1999 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

In Australia the boots are called "ugg boots" regardless of brand. This has been the universal term for the style in Australia since the 1960s. As the paragraph is about what they are called in Australia the correct spelling should be used. I will also point out that the OED is not a reliable source in this instance as they changed the definition in 2006 at Deckers request. The spelling "ugh" is used to identify a brand and is never used by the public to refer to the boot style itself. Wayne (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sheepskin boots. 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/20110426121124/http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/node/1885 to http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/node/1885

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)