Jump to content

Talk:Ugg boots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Promotional copy for Australian firms

[edit]

My impression is that in their zeal to avoid providing promotional copy for UGG Australia, the Australian editors are unintentionally turning this Wikipedia article into promotional copy for the brand's Australian competitors. All of the photos in the article show Australian made boots. The first paragraph is devoted exclusively to Australia. The second paragraph mentions Australian manufacturers first, followed by a brief mention of Deckers. The third paragraph again mentions Australian manufacturers first, followed by a brief mention of Deckers. Without the edits I've added recently, and with continued resistance by Australian editors, one would get the idea that it's the Australian manufacturers who own the world market. But all Australian manufacturers combined equal 5.9% of Deckers sales. Why is it so hard to make the article reflect this simple fact? Why is there so much resistance to the idea of accuracy? Reliable 1too (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is predominately about the style of boots, rather than a single manufacturer, there being dedicated articles about Deckers and UGG Australia. As the style is identified as an Australian style, of Australian origin, an Australian focus makes some sense. However, in terms of weight, UGG Australia/Deckers is mentioned in some way in almost every paragraph in the article - all three paragraphs in the lead mention Deckers, they are covered in the second paragraph in "History" out of the three, almost all of "International sales" is focused on them, and of course the trademark dispute concerns Deckers. In turn, Australian brands make it into one paragraph in the lead, are mentioned in history, and have almost no mention in "International sales". In terms of coverage, the bulk of this article seems to be focused on Deckers/UGG Australia.- Bilby (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several reliable sources describe Deckers as "dominating" the world market, and there is no source that describes any company (or national group of manufacturers) other than Deckers as "dominating" the world market. Before Deckers, it was a very obscure and generally despised product of a cottage industry in Australia, with some curiosity sales in Southern California. Deckers made it a worldwide fashion phenomenon, it seemed that every teenage girl in the United States and million elsewhere simply had to have a pair of UGG brand boots, and they're selling $1 billion a year. The Guardian claimed that the UGG brand boot was dead in 2012, but the Huffington Post has reported the opposite in 2014. So a Deckers focus would make some sense. Reliable 1too (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Bilby explained, we try not to promote any specific company, especially in an article about a generic (foot-wear)-term. In other words, we try to avoid PW and keep it more neutral.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An admirable goal, but the result has been a promotion of several other specific companies. Adding a mention that the Australian firms add up to 5.9% of Deckers, and that Deckers dominates the market, is a step in the right direction but it's only one step. A few days ago, the entire lead section made no mention of Deckers' prominence and led readers to believe that Luda Productions was the world's largest. Recognizing that Deckers turned a cottage industry into a billion dollar industry, and owns well over 90% of the market, is like recognizing that Germany is the team to beat in World Cup competition. It isn't the least bit promotional. It's just a statement of fact. Reliable 1too (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A few days ago, the entire lead section made no mention of Deckers' prominence". Before you came in it did and only for a short time it didn't b/c it wasn't sourced, just as it wasn't when you first introduced your edit.TMCk (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your comment just as an attempt to pull another PW.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "PW" ... I have no idea what that means. I see the efforts by others here as probably well intentioned but having the unfortunate effect of providing ammunition for lawsuits. The defendants in the Dangdang case in China were citing all sorts of Internet sources, claiming them as proof that the word is generic worldwide. Do you see a possibility that this article might be used as evidence in such a manner? I do. Reliable 1too (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Wiki article as evidence in a court for what? LOL... or is it meant as a legal threat?TMCk (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PW is probably a reference to Phoenix and Winslow, a now indefinitely blocked sock-puppeteer who continually tried to introduce advertising for Deckers into this article. And please strike-through your comment about lawsuits, otherwise you are at risk of being blocked yourself - please read WP:NLT. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have missed the core point - Decker's is not marginalised in the article, but instead is covered in the vast bulk of it. If a single manufacturer is being promoted in this article, it is Deckers. not one of the Australian manufacturers. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in response to the photographs, two which I took. @Reliable 1too: we rely on people providing freely licensed photographs therefore we use what is available under those licenses. Even Deckers claims to manufacture in Australia so all manufacturing photos would be taken in Australia except those made elsewhere which deckers has proven in various courts to be counterfeits so photos of those would be inappropriate. Secondly when I contacted a local manufacturer they were happy to give me a tour of their production areas to take photographs. At the time of posting these photographs a lawyer working for deckers complained of this, I offered to also photograph their manufacturing processes that was declined at the time, that offer still stands. Gnangarra 01:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are all grateful for your contributions to the project. And I appreciate that the lower half of the article covers Deckers adequately. However, the most highly visible parts of any article are the lead section and the photos. Imagine a fictional country where 94.1% of the inhabitants are black, and we have a Wikipedia article about this country with four photos of white people. The lead section is dominated by discussion of the white inhabitants with a brief mention of some black people at the ends of the second and third paragraphs. And we look at the user profiles of the editors of this article, and they are all white people. Do you think this would be appropriate, and do you think casual readers "looking behind the WP curtain" for the first time would find it appropriate? Also, there is a fine photo of UGG Australia brand boots in the UGG Australia article and the Ugg boots trademark disputes article, so it's clear that at least one photo of the black people is available at Wikimedia Commons. Reliable 1too (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UGG Australia brand boots are in the lead in three places. Comparing boots to people is not especially helpful here, nor is speculating about user profiles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're "in the lead," just barely. Buried at the end of a couple of paragraphs. Comparing boots to people is very helpful because it highlights what I suggest is going on here. As I said when I started this section of the discussion, I think it's unintentional but the results are very clear. And the results don't make the Wikipedia project look NPOV. Reliable 1too (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, people aren't going to take you seriously if you say consumer brand boots are equivalent to living people, they just aren't. Take that however you want to. And, as you value NPOV, you should also consider that the source you added, [1], can not be considered any kind of reliable independent source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prejudice against a corporation is reasonably comparable to prejudice against a race of people, Elaquete, at least for the purpose of editing an online encyclopedia about both. It may be residing at the conscious or the subconscious level. I prefer to believe the latter, assuming good faith. And the other sources I added, such as this one,[2] are quality sources and were kept. Reliable 1too (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was it you that originally provided the Peoria Journal Star source?__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor provided it years ago, then it was removed and buried in the archives by an Australian editor per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My contribution was digging it up. Reliable 1too (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this source didn't mention the exact figure 95% that was in the article, and it was buried years ago. How could a previously uninvolved editor know to find that specific source out of the thousands of messages that this article has generated? Your story doesn't add up. You also can't pretend to not know who Phoenix and Winslow is after tracing back through the archives to here. There is some major league quacking going on here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another false accusation. Please stop it. The acronym "PW" was used, not "Phoenix and Winslow" and I failed to make the connexion. If the acronym "P&W" had been used instead, I probably would have understood since Phoenix and Winslow is all over the archives. The discussion of the Journal Star was easy to spot in the archives and track down. And if mentioning litigation that's broadly discussed in these articles is a "legal threat," how are we supposed to get any work done? Put your knives away and let's work on the article. Reliable 1too (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent your posts correctly. Continuing to not do so might be considered disruptive. - Nick Thorne talk 11:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Reliable 1too: you made this comment I see the efforts by others here as probably well intentioned but having the unfortunate effect of providing ammunition for lawsuits. on 30 June. Wikipedia isnt about writing history according to Deckers its about writing information based on information in reliable sources should others chose to use the same sources in court cases is not our concern. I liberally took that as meaning the Wikipedia should censoring information and only writing the story of Ugg boots as Deckers would like it to be. Yet when you read that sentence it can also be read as implying that editors here who dont observe the Deckers preferred line could face legal action such an ambigious meaning is both against WP:NPOV and/or WP:LEGAL. Your suggestion that you are talking about article content is really laughable as you have maintained through this discussion that you believe Deckers isnt getting sufficient coverage or prominence both in the written text and in the photographs and that this discussion has made no refernce to legal matters within the article. Under the circumstances I suggest you withdraw that comment Gnangarra 11:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see things haven't changed that much around here...... HI y'all. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

In the German Wikipedia we got the question, what is the correct pronunciation for ugg? -- Kürschner (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kürschner: Same as in 'ugly'. Akld guy (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Akld guy: Thank you, merry Christmas time! -- Kürschner (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ugg 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:

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) 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to include information about Charlie Spencer

[edit]

The last two weeks have seen a number of attempts by a series of IPs from the same ISP and a new account to insert unsourced history claims, starting with [3] by an apparent WP:COI editor with the summary "My family have never plugged this until now but I want to get out there to the world the 100% true origin of the ugg boot", and most recently [4].

I'm starting this thread so the IPs and new account can see where to discuss these edits. Meters (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the true ugg boot story that a lot of you old school surfers know about. We need you to leave your comments here. Press edit section. Write your thread down the bottom and select 'publish changes'. We will get the truth out to the world. This is the post we have been trying to change but gets deleted by admin until we get some more information from the people who know.
There are different claims to the origins of the ugg boot style. Artisanal sheepskin boots were known in rural Australia during the 1920s,[11] and were reportedly worn by shearers as they found them resistant to wool yolk, which would rot their ordinary boots. However, the date of commercial manufacturing began in 1962 by Charlie Spencer and the term 'Ugg' was first registered by John Arnold in 1971. Later the term 'Ugh' was registered by Shane Stedman. These are in the business records so we do not know why this person keeps deleting the truth. Someone does not want the truth out there.
There is a real war going on with the history of the ugg boot, being manipulated by big corporate business and fraudsters but this is the true ‘Ugg Boot’ story . There have been some outrageous claims to the origins of the ugg boot from the use of the 9G ‘fug’ boots warn by aviators in WWI to claims by Blue Mountain Uggs saying they were making them in 1933. Mortels Sheep Skin Tannery also claiming they were making ugg boots in the late 1950’s. But there are no business records showing this until much later in the 1980's. Shane Stedman claims he invented the ugg boot but there are many people in Australia that know this to be a fraudulent claim. There was a campaign that started suggesting that ‘ugg boots’ derived from the 9G WWI aviator boots. For starters, the 9G aviator boots are made with leather and a fleece lining. Ugg boots are made using 100% sheep skin and the ‘ugg’ name was simply an abbreviation of the word ‘ugly’. But it is being discovered that these claims from Stedman, Blue Mountain Uggs and Mortels are all fraudulent history claims and have been misleading people around the world for almost 30 years. There were nothing around like this until 1962 and the very first record of ‘Ugg’ being registered anywhere in the world was by John Arnold in 1971. The Spencer family have never advertised their part in the creation of the 'ugg boot', relying on the word of mouth of their loyal customers, some people have been 50 year customers which out dates any of the claims made by Stedman and Mortels, until now because of big business trying to squeeze out small business and the amount of fraudulent claims being discovered over the internet. The lies have gone too far and Charlie Spencer and John Arnold deserve the recognition for creating an Australian icon. This information is being suppressed on Wikipedia by these claimants who do not want people to know the truth about the origins of the ‘ugg boot’ but we will be working hard to get the truth out there. Graeme Spencer, son of Charlie Spencer, with the support from other Australian 'ugg boot' manufacturers are going to be working very hard with media to get the truth out there and turn the tables on these fraudsters.
The True Ugg Boot History - Charlie Spencer, a WWII veteran and surgical shoe maker by trade had started to manufacture sheepskin buff pads for crash repairers and floor polishers in the late 1950’s early 1960’s under registered business name ‘Re-nu Pads’, when he decided he would use some of his patterns and the sheep skin material to make a pair of boots for his daughter Sandra to keep her feet warm. These first sheep skin boots were definitely not glamorous and did not even have soles. They had 2 panels of sheep skin sewn together to form a boot and had a double-leather sole sewed into the sheepskin. They were rough as there wasn’t a lot of choice in the way of available sheep skin at the time but they served their purpose….warm feet. The sheepskin boot had been created and it did not take long for the word to get out to the public. For many years people around Australia knew the only place to get these sheepskin creations were out of Charlie Spencer’s back shed, first in Cowandilla, Adelaide and then soon after at Harvey Avenue, Netley in Adelaide South Australia. There was nowhere else in the world that had these and those who were lucky enough to hear the news would come from everywhere to purchase Charlie’s sheepskin boots.
They were never firstly intended to be worn outside but Australians loved them so much they would wear them everywhere. Charlie was always doing repairs on his customer’s boots weather it was re-stitching or sewing on a new sole. His most loyal customers were the Australian surfers who came from everywhere to purchase a pair of Charlie Spencer’s sheep skin boots to slap on after surfing.
That was until Charlie Spencer was introduced to John Arnold in the mid-1960's and Charlie was given the opportunity to supply John Arnolds surf shops in Adelaide with his sheep skin boots. John Arnold applied the first sole to the boots. This consisted of a flat rubber sole glued onto the leather sole of the boot and a rubber heel cut out and glued. A customer came into John's surf shop and commented 'these are the ugliest boots I've ever seen' and he came up with the name 'Ugg-ly Boots'. John Arnold soon thought they couldn’t keep calling them ‘Ugg-ly Boots’ and he came up with the abbreviated name ‘Ugg Boots’ in the late 1960's. This Australian icon had well and truly made its mark by this time and he knew he had to do something with registration because people were coming from everywhere around the world. Australian business records show the name ‘Ugg Boot’ was first registered in Australia by John Arnold in 1971. 9 years after the first sheepskin boot was created in Charlie Spencer's back shed.
Where Shane Stedman from Sydney comes into the fold is where the ‘Ugg Boot’ business gets ugly and there has been much research done on the legitimacy of his claims, which from this research have been found to be fraud, taking pieces of the Spencer story and claiming it for his own. Shane Stedman had told Sydney newspapers about his 'ugg boot' discovery in South Australia in that back shed. Ten years later he is telling papers he was the inventor of the 'ugg boot'. People have also said there is a connection between Shane Stedman and Mortels. Mortels also claim the story taking pieces of the truth from Charlie Spencer's story.
There was a surfing competition in South Australia which Shane Stedman attended and all the eastern Australian surfers were astounded by all these South and Western Australian surfers wearing these boots made out of sheep skin. They all had on their feet Charlie Spencer’s sheep skin boots. Shane Stedman, along with renowned Australian surfer Nat Young inquired about these and found that a man called Charlie Spencer was manufacturing these out of his back shed in Netley. Brad Spencer, Charlie’s son and known surfer around local Adelaide introduced Nat Young and Shane Stedman to his father, Charlie as he was manufacturing ‘Ugg Boots’ out of his back shed in Harvey Ave, Netley. They asked Charlie if he could fulfill an order of 300+ boots. Unfortunately Charlie was just a one man band and he was happy just supplying John Arnold so he turned down the offer. So Shane and Nat bought 2 pair of ugg boots and off they went. There was talk about Nat’s Size 12 feet that Charlie had to fit in this meeting. Unique facts like this are important to this story.

My name is Brad Spencer as a surfer I was nicknamed 'Speed'. I can confirm that my father Charlie Spencer did in fact meet Nat Young and Shane Stedmen as indicated. They were in SA promoting Shane Surfboards for Geoff Smith's surf shop who was a member of the same surf club as myself. I used to supply small amounts of Ugg boots to Geoff Smith's surf shop from Dad. I met Nat, Shane and Ted Spence (another surfer on the promotion tour) at Middleton and talked about setting up a meeting with them at Dad's backyard factory. The rest is history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.18.65 (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was never Charlie and John’s intention to trademark ‘Ugg Boots’ having created an Australian icon like ‘thongs and flip-flops’. They were just happy with supplying the locals. It was only supposed to become a generic name as back yard ‘ugg boot’ manufacturers were popping up everywhere in Australia taking the world by storm. But opportunists had other ideas spreading outrageous claims to the origins of the ‘Ugg Boot’. Stedman was one of these opportunists having taken the 'ugg boots' he bought from Charlie, taken these apart to copy the patterns, and started to publicise he invented the ugg boot. You can’t argue with Australian business registrar records though. The records then show a Stedman registering the name ‘Ugh Boot’ later in 1971. There is no registration of ‘Ugg’ by Mortels or Blue Mountain. There is a record of Brian Smith who registered ‘Ugg’ in the US in 1985. This is the registration that Deckers, an American footwear company wanted along with the Australian registration that John Arnold’s owned. Once Shane Stedman had the ‘ugg boot’ pattern he proceeded to travel around selling Charlie’s invention. Mortels in NSW was one of these businesses he sold the pattern to in the 1980's. Then because these players knew that these boots were being made out of a back shed they decided to completely rip-off Charlie’s story, travelling the world and telling Newspapers their fraudulent claims. We will be working with the ACCC to prove these claims are complete fraud and have been defrauding the world with their claims for many years now.
How American company Deckers received the 'ugg boot’ registration is quite astounding and an example of big business destroying small business in Australia. John Arnolds started a business in Lonsdale, South Australia called ‘Golden Breed’, manufacturing these ’Hawaiian style’ shirts and franchised these to Deckers in the US. John Arnold had run into financial difficulty and cutting a long story short, handed them the ‘ugg’ registration in a business deal. Deckers started an ‘ugg boot’ manufacturing plant in Adelaide but did not take long for them to take our Australian icon and set-up in China. They have been misleading consumers for years, calling their 'ugg boot' brand ‘Australian Ugg Boots’ when they are all cheaply made in China. Deckers have then gone on to sue manufacturers around the world for using the term ‘ugg’ on their product. Australian manufacturers of ‘Ugg Boots’ with the help of the Australian government have made the term ‘Ugg’ generic in Australia and are working on making this a generic term around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SA surfer (talk • contribs) 05:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us where to find the "business record" that shows "the term 'Ugg' was first registered by John Arnold in 1971". If you can, this definitely should be added to the article. Donama (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Donama said. When adding information to Wikipedia you should cite your sources - see Wikipedia:Citing sources. That is particularly important for an article like this which has been controversial in the past - a few years ago it was under nearly constant attack from one editor (now blocked) whose every edit (on multiple topics) was indistinguishable from the sort of edit which would have been made by a professional Internet 'reputation manager'.
I suggest you start by tracking down the July 10-20 1997 issue of 'the Australian Magazine' (as quoted, I cannot easily find information on a magazine of that name, but I'm not in Australia and don't have much interest in general magazines). A locally published book "The Way We Wore: the clothes New Zealanders have loved" (Richard Wolfe, Penguin Books, Auckland, 2001) quotes "...Australia was responsible for introducing another oddity to the New Zealand wardrobe in the 1970s. According to the Australian Magazine (July 10-20, 1997), in 1965 John Arnold of Adelaide came up with the idea..."
Hope this information helps - and please cite your sources per the above link. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found adverts in the Canberra Times in December 1971 for ugg boots as suitable Christmas gifts for young adults from "The Shearing Shed" in Kingston, surfing supplies in April 1972 and clearance from Young's shoe shops in July 1973. The term must have been common enough in Canberra by then that it did not need explanation. By 1975, Gunning Wool and Craft centre had short and long ugg boots.
  • "Advertising". The Canberra Times. Vol. 46, , no. 12, 989. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 10 December 1971. p. 4. Retrieved 12 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • "Advertising". The Canberra Times. Vol. 46, , no. 13, 105. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 22 April 1972. p. 25. Retrieved 12 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • "Advertising". The Canberra Times. Vol. 47, , no. 13, 485. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 12 July 1973. p. 19. Retrieved 12 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • "Advertising". The Canberra Times. Vol. 49, , no. 14, 044. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 19 April 1975. p. 16. Retrieved 12 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
--Scott Davis Talk 09:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information Daveosaurus. That is so good. This is such an excellent platform to bring forward all this information. I know there are bits and pieces out there. We just need to piece it all together and have it displayed in Wikipedia format. Donama was so helpful in showing me the way to go about this important topic on this site. Just going to be very patient and calculated and I know eventually the truth will come out. There are a lot of people around that do know. Just a matter of bringing them together and getting them motivated to post there story on here. Thank you for that information Scott Davis. Yes, it did not take long for the ugg boots to get around did they?? So if Mortels or Blue Mountain were making them why were all the Sydney siders coming to Adelaide to get their ugg boots??? Because they were not making them!! Everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon when they heard someone was making them in their back shed. Why can't they just say where they got the idea from? They know I'm telling youSA surfer (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am so excited to have caught up with John Arnold and he is coming down to Adelaide for a few days. Can't wait to see him again after so many years. This is something that is very close to my heart and with a bit of hard work, determination and the support from the community, we will get it out there. I want to ask if he wants me to do this first before I start putting archived records on here. I don't see why not. I just want to say, this campaign has nothing to do with any personal gain whatsoever. This is the fact that South Australia has always been 'trodden' on by the Eastern states and for them to come over and claim this for themselves, and they know darn well who created the ugg boot. It is so wrong. Stedman laughed in my mothers face when she confronted him about this at a wedding. He is the one that started this whole ugg boot circus after buying those two pairs of ugg boots out of Charlie's back shed. Please keep posting and keep this page aliveSA surfer (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I don't think Wikipedia is quite the right place for getting 'the truth' 'out there'. I notice on your talk page you say "I have already spent about 20 years researching this and talking to a lot of people in the know. I could almost write a novel on the subject." - so write the book. Seriously, that would be a more effective way of getting your story onto Wikipedia than just adding unsourced consent. Write the book, get the book published, wait for editors to find out that the book exists and let them condense it down to the salient facts and add them to the article.Daveosaurus (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
continued WP:NOTAFORUM comments by WP:COI editor and by an IP
I was just talking to someone about that today. I like the idea of 'salient facts', because there are many. Classic story of David and Goliath, especially now that the US has total control. A lot of the old school surfers despise that. It will take me a while but I am going to do it mate. Yes Donama explained that this is not a platform of truth, just what is documented basically. So that is what I'm doing. Getting the information together and getting it cross-referenced. Thank you for your support SA surfer (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I even think this would make a great movie script starting with Charlie's days as an Ambulance driver in WWII. He only liked talking about the good parts of that.SA surfer (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our meeting with John Arnold earlier today has been very interesting. At this stage because there is a court hearing currently in motion involving a Sydney manufacturer and Deckers we are holding back on some of the information we have on Charlie Spencer and John Arnold. This information will come out in due course. John answered my questions in depth, explaining some of the ruthless practices of big business in this area at the time and it has really opened my eyes. This is a classic example of big business trying to push aside small business and one of the main reasons why I want this exposed. John Arnold had a large factory in the Adelaide CBD next to the Hilton Hotel selling Charlie's Ugg Boots to the general public along with his wetsuits and other Surf accessories. Something I did not know was that John Arnold with O'neill started making O'neill wetsuits which were another of Johns creations that were bought, cut-up and remade in the form of a Rip Curl, Quicksilver or a Billabong wetsuit. But that is another story for another time. At the moment we are concentrating on the origins of the ugg boot. One of the first businesses John Arnold started wholesaling to was a business called 'Surf, Dive and Ski' and there will be adds in copies of 'The News' and 'The Advertiser' from the mid-1960's. If anyone can find these please post on this discussion. Meanwhile I am getting a very good photo collection of ugg boot pictures from the 1960s and 70's. Will post some of these soon.SA surfer (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John Arnold has been talking to his lawyers in Chicago to release the first ever registration of the ugg boot back in 1971 as requested by Donama (a Wikipedia rep.) for proof of Charlie Spencer's and John Arnold's involvement in the creation of the ugg boot 9 years after Charlie Spencer made his first pair of sheep skin boots. This registration has been under lock and key because of attempted hacks on the business registrar in the past. This will be excellent proof and a good foundation for what we are standing for in giving Charlie Spencer and John Arnold the recognition and exposing the frauds who have been going around the world and spreading their mendacities. This is so important to our South Australian history and economy. It is great to have all these articles because it has given leverage. These people have not done themselves any favors by spreading these falsehoods. There are so many people in the community from many backgrounds who have got their own story to tell about Charlie and the ugg boot, it is just a matter of getting them to post in this discussion. Remember to select 'Talk' and then 'Edit' on Charlie Spencer's discussion and scroll to the bottom of the last comment. Press the indentations like this ::::: Usually 1 more indent than the comment before and remember to select the 4 squiggly lines at the end of your comment to sign your post. SA surfer (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Jensen?

[edit]

In the international sales section, more than halfway into the first paragraph, it reads “in 1979 Jensen handed over his share...” This is the first time Jensen is mentioned, we never get any context or explanation for this person. This is my first comment, sorry for any mistakes.

Thank you for that observation. I have no idea who Jensen is either, so I have added a "Who?" tag to the mention of the name in the article. That section is very poorly sourced, with mentions of the Los Angeles Magazine being linked to Wikipedia's article about it, rather than the relevant edition of the magazine itself. That is less than useless. I may remove those "references" and ask for real citations. The only improvement you might make to your comment would be to sign it, by typing ~~~~ at the end. Otherwise, welcome aboard! HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I found we have another, overlapping article called UGG (brand). It tells us who Doug Jensen is. I have update this article a little to explain. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugg_boots&oldid=1210786767"