Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Photos for Uggs

If anyone owns Bearpaw and/or EMU boots, can you please take photos of them so we can post them on their newly created pages respectively? Thanks. – Tinton5 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Regular contributors to this article might be interested to know that its neutrality is currently being discussed here. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Make protection banner smaller

Please make the page protection banner smaller. It does not have to be that big. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages protected due to a dispute, rather than simple vandalism, should be flagged as such to ensure that people understand why the page is protected. Disabling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that edit warring has produced this result. Liangshan Yi (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chic Empire case

Every week I run Google searches on "Ugg boots" and "Deckers" that are limited to new (or freshly edited) web pages from the past seven days. It's really the only effective way to edit an article like this one where the reliability of sources is so frequently disputed. I found this [1] and Chic Empire is mentioned on page 3. Cowboysforever was the first to find the Clickcorp case however. Wayne, regarding removal of the counterfeiting cases, you've already admitted that whenever the generic term defense is used, it belongs in this article. If it doesn't, then we can remove all these legal cases starting with Uggs-N-Rugs/Mortels v. Deckers. You can't cherry pick that one and toss out all the rest because Deckers lost that one.

Also Wayne, I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the IP Australia fact sheet can't be used as a source to confirm that IP Australia did not declare "Ugg boots" to be a generic term, so legally its status is still ambiguous in Australia. You claim that since we're using a copy from the Deckers website, it's unreliable. You fail to understand the difference between unproven allegations in a lawsuit, and forgery or alteration of an official government document. Law firms make allegations in lawsuits, and then fail to prove them on a regular basis. Some are frivolous and subject to sanctions; others are definitely not. If a law firm was sanctioned every time it filed a lawsuit and lost, it would have a very chilling effect and a lot of valid claims would go uncompensated because no law firm had the courage to file them.

Falsifying an official government document, however, is another matter. IP Australia would be able to pursue not only civil penalties, but criminal prosecution against Deckers executives for forging an official document. Clearly the fact sheet was once posted on the IP Australia website but they've taken it down. Also, most of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet is echoed on other sites that are clearly reliable and unbiased. And we do not have the WP:BLP issues that so obviously dominated the discussion at that other article. (A false accusation of systematic child prostitution, for God's sake. It doesn't get more BLP than that.) Here we don't have those concerns. So taking all these facts in consideration, the copy of the IP Australia fact sheet on the Deckers website is sufficiently reliable.

I also raise a question about the extensive use of Kathy Marks as a source for this article. The anon editor who has now created the account Liangshan Yi was first to question this. An enormous number of the reference links in this article go to articles written by Kathy Marks. Therefore we introduce a strong percentage of whatever bias she has into this article. In general, the sources used for this article are overwhelmingly either Australian, or friendly to the Australian manufacturers (i.e. Kathy Marks). For an NPOV article about the ugg boots style in the entire world, we need a representative sampling of reliable sources from the entire world. By removing the counterfeiting cases and letting Kathy Marks write the content of most of this article, we are failing the NPOV test. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As they are single purpose accounts created specifically to comment here, you will have to excuse me for not taking Cowboysforever and Liangshan Yi seriously.

As I said before (and proven), a generic defense is smoke and mirrors in a counterfeit case and is not relevant for this article. Details of counterfeit cases are also not relevant. Uggs-N-Rugs, Luda and Emu appear to be the only cases of any relevance.

The Chic Empire case appears to be regarding the alleged infringement of a patented design feature on the upper portion of the boot, does not involve any generic claim and does not involve any standard design feature of the boot. It is not at this time, if at all, relevant for this article by any stretch of the imagination. I could not see the entire complaint because you have to be a member of one of the websites of the various law firms involved to view the complete filing.

In regards to the IP Australia fact sheet, ignoring that you have again brought up a previous dispute that editors and admins have repeatedly requested you not to do, you yourself won that case at the RSN by arguing that a copy of a reliable source published verbatem by an unreliable source is not to be considered reliable. Be that as it may, courts do not as rule assign a generic product any actual legal statis because it is based on the publics ability to distinguish goods. However, they do comment on a product being generic or not. The original case transcript is not only clear but overides any fact sheet on Deckers webpage:

(Page 10) The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that the terms UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods which should innocently come to the minds of people making this particular style of sheepskin boot. The terms thus lack any inherent capacity to distinguish the particular goods. The Yellow Pages®, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot.4 They are terms which are required by other traders without any improper motive to describe those boots.
I am forced to the conclusion that whatever identity the term UGH-BOOTS might have as a trade mark must derive from the hyphenated nature of the expression. It is apparent that any loss of the hyphen or misspelling (or other variation from the registered trade mark) by the opponent so that it is rendered UGH BOOTS or UG BOOTS or UGG BOOTS must necessarily involve a change to the identity of the trade mark since these terms are all generic.
The registration should not therefore be viewed as conferring rights in the generic term, or terms, from which it is derived. The uses of these generic terms by the opponent are not, therefore, uses of [Deckers] registered trade mark.

The use of Kathy Marks is less than 10% of the sources used and is not "an enormous number" or "most of this article" as you claim. It is in proportion to the number of articles that different journalists have written on the subject. Please accept the consensus and allow us to move on to more constructive persuits than arguing with a single editor. Wayne (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"As they are single purpose accounts created specifically to comment here ..." I don't know anything about Cowboysforever, but as an IP anon Liangshan Yi used to be a single purpose accountth a completely different single purpose: editing an article about an autonomous prefecture in China called Liangshan Yi. Do a little checking before making accusations. You haven't "proven" anything regarding the alleged smoke and mirrors nature of a generic term defense. But without some proof that you're licensed to practice trademark law in those respective countries, your arguments in that area are meaningless. You seem to be saying that only the cases involving Australian firms are of any significance. I remind you again that this is an article about ugg boots (the boot style) IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, and no country is any more important than any other. Specifically, regarding trademark cases, Australian companies are no more important than companies based in any other country, such as La Cheapa, Koolaburra and Deckers.

I bring up the other dispute only because you seem to believe that the WP:RSN ruling that happened there should apply to all articles indiscriminately. It was a BLP article. This is not. Furthermore, the person posting a PDF scan of a document on their website was not a billion-dollar corporation s we have here, subject to severe government sanctions and criminal prosecution for allegedly forging an official document, but a self-styled "investigative reporter," more appropriately called a "conspiracy theorist," who faced no other penalty except the loss of his dubious credibility for possibly altering a newspaper article. The stark difference in circumstances and possible penalties indicates that it's far more likely the Deckers scan is authetic. In the fact sheet, IP Australia explicitly refrained from declaring the term to be generic. IP Australia also explicitly stated that only a court had the authority to do so. You find this inconvenient for the direction you're trying to steer this article, and so you seek to disqualify it any way you can.

You still haven't made your alleged source available for all editors to review. Please scan it and post it on one of the many websites that will do it free of charge, then post the link here and we'll take a look.

"Less than 10% of the sources used" does not reveal the number of times each source is referenced, does it? There are a total of 70 references made in the article. Eight of them go to one article by Kathy Marks. But four others go to other articles written by Kathy Marks. That's nearly 20% of the references going to a single author. All of the other 41 sources referenced in this article are referenced once typically, and no more than four times. So Kathy Marks is given three times as much weight as any other author. This is clearly disproportionate. I suggest that she should be trimmed back to four references, which is the most that any other author gets, and all material that is left unspported by the removal of the other eight Marks references should be deleted.

You and I are the only two people who have been commenting on these topics for the past five or six days, so don't pretend that you have consensus on the matter of Kathy Marks. Liangshan Yi first raised the objection to giving Marks so much WP:WEIGHT, and no one else has weighed in on the matter. Also, I don't see a lot of support for your contention that the IP Australia fact sheet is an unreliable source and suggest that you take it to WP:RSN to get some input from uninvolved editors, as I once did. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A search shows that Liangshan Yi and Cowboysforever were accounts created on 5 November and 8 November respectively and have edited no other articles since creation. How did you know that Liangshan Yi edited previously as an anon?

The judge in the Dutch case said exactly what I said. There is no requirement that I have a licence to practice trademark law to mention trademark law as you are claiming.

I never said only Australian cases should be included. I said only cases with a legitimate generic defense should be.

I never said the fact sheet was not authentic or had been altered. I said that the original case transcript overides their fact sheet which is simply a short summary of the transcript likely supplied and edited at Deckers request. I note that Deckers did not post their copy of the transcript, probably because it would be inconvenient for the direction they are trying to steer this article.

I am unable to scan and post the source as my connection is 3.2 kbps and uploads tend to freeze if a file is too big. I do not use hosting websites anyway. The case transcript is available in University libraries so any registered University student can access it.

Weight applies to content, not the number of articles an author has written. If the content is verifiable and relevant an editor can use a single source a thousand times. Requesting a consensus for the use of a source more than once is filibustering.

With the exception of SPAs no editors have supported your edits. Your claim on the RFC/U that it was only coincidence that every uninvolved editor you contacted supported you was rejected and you have been warned several times not to canvass for support. A number of editors have made their view known here and your claiming that because they are not replying to your repetitious POV editing somehow negates the consensus is tiresome. The only reason I reply is to correct your claims. Wayne (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"How did you know that Liangshan Yi edited previously as an anon?" Because he said so. He's edited twice using his new account, so it won't be hard for you to find it.

"The judge in the Dutch case said exactly what I said." He said whatever he said in Dutch. I'll rely on Google Translate.

"I never said only Australian cases should be included. I said only cases with a legitimate generic defense should be." Strangely enough, the only cases you indicated that you want to keep ("Uggs-N-Rugs, Luda and Emu") all involve Australian litigants, and Deckers lost two out of three, while the third was settled out of court. What you want to remove is all the cases that Deckers won. Fancy that. What a coincidence. Wayne, I'm not going to leave it to you to declare what's a "legitimate" generic defense under trademark law and what isn't, nor should anyone else. Furthermore, even if it's illegitimate in one country, that doesn't mean it's illegitimate in others.

"... so any registered University student can access it." In Australia. Very convenient.

"Requesting a consensus for the use of a source more than once is filibustering." Now you're distorting what I've said. You're relying on Kathy Marks and her biases almost as much as you once relied upon Nick Bryant and his biases. When one author is referenced three times as much as any other in writing a Wikipedia article, there should at least be some showing that she has some special expertise or experience in this area of study. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Using WP User contributions shows Liangshan Yi has only edited this article and has a blank talk page. What IP did he edit with before?

Google Translate gave pretty much the same translation as I did. Case closed.

I'm not going to leave it to you to declare what's a "legitimate" generic defense under trademark law and what isn't. I'll leave that to the judge and he found that it was not a "legitimate" generic defense.

...So, University libraries dont carry a pdf copy. In America. Very convenient. Doesn't matter, any University student in Australia can authenticate the pdf for you.

Kathy Marks is a highly regarded journalist and is not even Australian. Her expertise is journalism. There is no WP restriction on the number of times you can use a source for verifiable and relevant content.

Once again you make a personal attack in an attempt to discredit me despite many, many requests by editors and admins to stop. Please stop. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What "personal attack"? Regarding Liangshan Yi, the editor explained previous IP anon status fully here: [2] Wayne, you responded directly to that post here [3] so you're already fully aware of it. Please stop pretending that you aren't. The Dutch judge observed that the La Cheapa distributor was importing counterfeit Deckers boots, and was importing from TWO Australian firms, then identified ONE of them as Jumbo Uggs (with Jumbo Uggs logos) but did not identify the other Australian firm. It is ridiculously obvious, to any editor at Wikipedia, that THE OTHER AUSTRALIAN FIRM manufactured the counterfeit Deckers products, even though the judge didn't explicitly spell that out for you. Who knows, maybe it was the Vaysmans. Whether the use of the generic term defense was "legitimate" or not isn't even relevant for purposes of this article. The fact of the matter is that the Dutch judge clearly stated that a generic term defense cannot work in the Netherlands because UGGS (the brand) is a recognized brand name in the Netherlands. Evidently you want to limit generic term cases to those where the defense was successful, a transparent attempt to limit the article to cases that Deckers lost, and exclude any cases that Deckers won. And yes Wayne, there is a restriction on how heavily you can rely on one author and her biases, as opposed to other authors. It's called WP:WEIGHT. I might concede the point if she had some sort of special expertise, such as being a licensed trademark attorney. But she's just a journalist, and she has an obvious bias in favor of the Australian manufacturers. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference to a previous dispute in every post you make is a personal attack you keep repeating despite multiple requests by editors and admins to stop.

You really need to refrain from making edits or suggestions that involve interpretations of Google translations. There is no evidence that the second Australian company existed. It was a claim by La Cheaper along with their claim that they bought boots from a Deckers outlet and onsold them. The court found that the Jumbo Uggs company had not committed any offense, in fact the judge said that La Cheapa had infringed Jumbo Uggs trademark. The judge merely ruled that Jumbo Uggs could not be sold in the Netherlands because it would cause "confusion" with Deckers products. Jumbo legally sold their product to another company, not illegally to the public in the Netherlands.

Whether it is or not, what is "ridiculously obvious, to any editor at Wikipedia" is WP:OR.

Your claim that the Dutch judge stated that a generic term defense cannot work in the Netherlands because UGGS is a recognized brand name is at least WP:OR if not outright deception on your part. What the judge actually said was that a generic defense cannot succeed because the name was part of a counterfeit Deckers logo and the La Cheapa generic defense only applied to the word itself.

Claiming that a respected journalist has an obvious bias in favor of Australian manufacturers is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow makes an excllent point about whether this article should be global or local. I would like to add that the 145 countries where Deckers owns exclusive rights not only account for over half of the nations in the world but an even higher percentage of the Global market and population, including several English speaking states with a higher population than Australia (the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada, India and Pakistan) .

There doesn't seem to be a tremendous amount of concensus on the scope of this article. Either this is restrained to Australia and New Zealand or its international. This is significant because the situation in Australia and New Zealand is far more muddled. I again have to remind those in favor of the "age old generic" argument that no source has nailed down when and how the term came to used in Australia.

Editors have contended on this talk page that because Australia is the country of origin, the description used in that country can be applied to an article that is global in its scope. This was used in the issue of changing the name of this article to the international term, "Sheepskin boots." In that argument it was accepted that the article should not apply solely to Australia and/or New Zealand. That idea was also rejected when I suggested changing the lede to specify that this entry is about restricted to a style in these two countries.

If this article is to be truly international then we have to include disputes settled in multiple courts. To exclude that data would limit the perspective to Australia and New Zealand and necessitate adding specific restrictions to the lede and more appropriately, the title. You can't claim that the entry is not restricted to Australia and New Zealand and refuse to include international disputes.--Factchk (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To give an unbiased perspective on this, counterfeits do not need to be mentioned in the article. Though it is an interesting bit of history.... a blip about "many counterfeits have been attempted" is likely enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieSwitz88001 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Very odd. The article starts (after markup-stripping, but with my emphasis): Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs) are a unisex style of sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. I don't understand how a style can be counterfeited. If indeed "UGG Australia" products have been counterfeited in some "notable" [as the word is understood by Wikipedia] way, then this should be added to the article "UGG Australia". Oh, it already seems to have been added. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've missed a lot of the discussion, Hoary. The counterfeiting cases on this page all involve a claim by the counterfeiters that the term "ugg boots" is generic. They claim that the term refers to the boot style, and not to a particular brand. It's the same allegation made by Uggs-N-Rugs in their case against Deckers before the Australian IP authority, and that's what makes them relevant to this specific article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then it's a matter of (actual or alleged) trademark infringement, no? There's already a long, perhaps too long, section here titled "Trademark disputes". -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the recent USA cases section, the word "ugg" is quoted within a quotation, and therefore needs to be in single quotes. There needs to be a notice on the talk page about specifically why this page is fully protected. —danhash (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For the quotation,  Done. For the second point, the protection log states "Protected Ugg boots: this is ridiculous; editors on this article can't stop edit-warring". You should direct further questions about this to User:Tariqabjotu in the first instance. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional edit request on Talk page

There are two RFCs at Talk: Ugg boots. I'd appreciate it if a previously uninvolved admin would formally close both of them, since both have been posted more than 30 days, the page is a battleground and there's been no request for an extension. The first was an effort to remove the "Concerns about quality" section, by User:Bilby. At first it appeared that he might get consensus, but some later arrivals defeated that proposal. I suggest a finding of "no consensus."

The second, by User:WLRoss, was an attempt to remove counterfeiting cases from the article. First, it doesn't appear that he obtained consensus either; and second, the RFC was never properly filed, so it would be hard for any uninvolved editors to even find out about it. Either one of these rationales is sufficient to close the RFC with a finding of "no consensus." Thanks -- Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

While there may not be unanimous consensus for either, there's a simple majority for both. This, when taken into account that the "late arrivals" are all SPAs and likely meatpuppets/sockpuppets, I don't think we can take their input too seriously. Also, what about the fact that both sections were arbitrarily inserted into the article without consensus? Doesn't that count? It's time for you to admit that you've lost this debate and move on. You've still got half a dozen or so foreign language Wikipedia entries on ugg boots to preside over. I find it hugely ironic that one such as yourself, who is responsible for the repeated locking of this article due to edits without and against consensus, should be so concerned about these RFCs. Mandurahmike (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you're so diligent about repeating your sockpuppet/meatpuppet allegations (unproven) so frequently, Mike, I think it's only fair to point out that the so-called "simple majority" consists of five or six Australians and one New Zealander, who may be influenced by cultural bias. Counting them all as one "vote" would provide the truly international perspective that Wikipedia requires. And both times the article was locked, the last edit before the lock was by an especially contentious Australian editor named WLRoss, who was reverting both times. It takes two sides for an edit war, Mike. You only seem worried about one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not a valid use of {{editprotected}}. You might like to add the request to WP:AN instead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrying Over Discussion Points

This discussion has been closed, none further needed unless there is something new. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some proposals regarding this article were discussed on another page and I am reprinting them here for further discussion: 2.Mentions of UGG brand and associated trademark disputes *on the ugg boots page* should be limited to a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page. 3.The opinions of J.Lo and anyone else on the subject of UGG brand boots belong elsewhere than on the ugg boots page. 4.Mentions of Australian boot manufacturers are just as pertinent to the ugg boots page as the American brand. 5.The UGG Australia page should have a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail elsewhere, of the existence of an ugg boot style. So here is an example of a summary of the Trademark Dispute Section that can be used if that section is removed to its own page- “There has been several disputes between those who contend that ugg is a common identifier or whether it is a valid trademark. This is due to ugg being both a common term in Australia and a trademark/brand UGG® owned by Deckers Outdoor Corporation. In 2006, one of Deckers’ trademarks was successfully challenged and removed from the register in Australia. The delegate found that the company had not used this mark in 5 years and stated ug, ugh, or ugg were the most common expressions for this type of boot in Australia. Although that same argument has been tried in other nations, for example the United States, Turkey, and the Netherlands, Deckers has successfully defended their exclusive rights to use UGG in every instance.” I’m sure this wording isn’t perfect but perhaps we can at least use it as a guideline for how to proceed.--Factchk (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 2: current content is basically ok. 3: as they apply to a specific brand not the style, agreed. 4: Why do manufacturers need to be named unless they are involved in notable ways? 5: a hatnote to this page in the Ugg Australia lead while the article body should contain only detail relevant to the brand. The overseas cases are not relevant, the judge ruled that a generic defense could not be considered as they were counterfeit prosecutions, therefore these cases are relevant for the Ugg Australia article not here. The point "the company had not used this mark" was only one finding of several and applied to only one mark. Another finding was that all the names were generic. Wayne (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC) (A) Any attempt to use the generic term defense, anywhere in the world, successful or not, tests the existence of the generic term in that country. Therefore it is relevant to this article. If "Ugg boots" had existed as a generic term in the Netherlands, for example, La Cheapa would have won; Deckers would have lost; and you would be POV-pushing just as hard to make sure the La Cheapa case stays in this article. The generic term's evident nonexistence in all countries outside of Australia and New Zealand is demonstrated by these cases and is relevant to this article. By attempting to exclude all cases where the generic term defense has failed, you are attempting to exclude all cases that Deckers won. This misleads the reader into believing that spread of the generic term throughout the world is inevitable, and that the Australian people own the term. "It's a generic term" or "It's a boot style" is the minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Like so many of your other experiences here at Wikipedia, you are POV-pushing to present the minority view as mainstream. This is a violation of the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia. (B) "Another finding was that all the names were generic." Prove it. Don't just tell us what some alleged document says, when nobody but you has access to that document. Prove it. Create a PDF copy of it on any scanner, and post it on any one of several websites that will post it for free, Photobucket for example. Then post a link and prove it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) What? Is there an actionable edit proposal? Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (A)No one has claimed that the term is generic in other countries and the article is clear on that point. The generic claim was never tested in the La Cheapa case as the judge rightly ruled it irrelevant in a counterfeit prosecution. If "Ugg boots" had existed as a generic term in the Netherlands, La Cheapa would still have lost the case because they sold a counterfeit product that used the UGG Australia logo. If the boot had been sold in Australia and prosecuted here La Cheapa would still have lost the case. I am assuming you are not a complete idiot and understand what a counterfeit is. (B)It is not "some alleged document". I have told you where to find the document online and provided copies to other editors. I have even quoted entire sections here. The only violation of Wikipedia policies is your tendentious editing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude. Wayne (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC) "No one has claimed that the term is generic in other countries and the article is clear on that point." Really? Where does it say that? My impression is that the first half of the article consistently insinuates that the term IS generic throughout the entire world, and that each individual case (Netherlands, Turkey, United States) that defeated the generic term defense provides one relatively small exception. Please show me why that impression is wrong — you should be able to quote directly from the article, since it's allegedly "clear on that point." "If the boot had been sold in Australia and prosecuted here La Cheapa would still have lost the case." La Cheapa lost on several points because they were selling multiple lines of boots which used the word "ugg" in different ways. Counterfeiting was just one aspect of the case, affecting one of their product lines. Maybe you should try reading the case before discussing it. "I have told you where to find the document online and provided copies to other editors." No, you didn't tell me where to find the document online. According to your statements on this Talk page, you claim that you have provided a copy to one other editor: Donama. She has not acknowledged that she received it, or that it says what you claim. This does not bear even the slightest resemblance to the requirements of proving your argument in real life. If you can't post a link, please contact me via email and send me a copy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Isn't it time you gave it a rest and stopped wasting everyones time? Quote from lead: "Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds the UGG trademark in 145 countries worldwide. Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where the term is considered generic." Quote from body of article: "Outside Australia and New Zealand, UGG (written in capital letters) is a registered trademark of Deckers Outdoor Corporation." According to the court transcript of the La Cheapa case, Deckers claim regarding the boots labelled "Jumbo Uggs" (the non-counterfeited boots La Cheapa sold) was rejected, which is why the court awarded proportional court costs to both Deckers and La Cheapa. As I posted earlier, I got my copy of the case transcript from the Flinders University library. Students/academics registered at any university can download the pdf. The full title is "Opposed application by Bruce E McDougall and Bronwyn McDougall under section 92 to remove 245662(25) UGH-BOOTS registered in the name of Deckers Outdoor Corporation" and the call number is 'eReserve LLAW 3247'. It's a bit rich asking me to mail you a copy. I seem to remember a content dispute where you claimed the source (photo-copies of newspaper articles) had likely fabricated the photo-copies. An RFC decided that only the original newspaper articles could be used, editors who were not local (lived outside of Omaha) had to pay to access the online newspaper articles (over $1,000 for all the articles in dispute), you got copies sent to you by your meatpuppet who lived in Omaha and found that the photo-copies were accurate (supported the edits you disputed), you refused to share them and as a result the edits you disputed could not be included in the article. If I did send you a copy you would just misquote what it says anyway. Wayne (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots are 'Most Searched'

Ugg boots are the "most searched" clothing item according to the Wall Street Journal:[4]

A tablet computer for children, $299 headphones blessed by a rap icon, and tenaciously trendy sheepskin boots: Those are among the most popular items shoppers are seeking this holiday season, according to services that track online searches. ... As for apparel, the hot accessory, particularly among teen girls, has been around for well over a decade: Ugg boots. Made by Deckers Outdoor Corp., they were the most searched-for apparel item in the four weeks ending Dec. 3, Experian says.

Let's add it to the article. What's your reaction? Don't tell me — let me guess. "Crikey! How inconvenient. Dump it into the UGG Australia article." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

For starters, if it's about the brand then yes it belongs in the article about the brand. Second, even then is it really important enough to add to Wikipedia? Was it the most searched over a significant enough period? The article implies it was merely over a 4-week period and so I would direct you to WP:RECENTISM and say it's not important enough to mention on Wikipedia. Apart from that the source is not very scholarly. For example, it doesn't specify who's doing the searching? If it is just limited to US (likely given it's the WSJ) then it's also a highly localised stat and can't be extrapolated to the entire world. My feeling about this is don't dump it anywhere. Leave it alone. Donama (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that it's talking about the Deckers Outdoor Corp object called ugg boots then of course it should go in the Ugg Australia article. Your (P&W's) insinuation that it would only be Australians to have this opinion is offensive and misleading, particularly given the recent outcome of your foray onto the NPOV boards at the hands of American editors on this very subject. Interestingly, your use of a gross cultural stereotype based on American perceptions of Australianism to make this inference (no Australian I know says "crikey" and it's only been elevated from a somewhat rarely-used colloquialism via the Crocodile Hunter, made popular in America before most had even heard of him in Australia) should highlight to everyone why you are in no position to comprehend the nature of ugg boots outside of your own narrow discourse. Offensive stereotypes aside, I don't think pre-mocking of any contradictory views likely to follow is going to help your position gain any credibility.Mandurahmike (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cripes, all that over one appearance of the Briticism "crikey"? (Meanwhile, my mind is boggling at the notion of "comprehending the nature of ugg boots". It's not rocket science.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If the item is discussing all manufacturers of ugg boots, then the comment belongs in the Ugg boots article. If the article is only discussing boots manufactured by Deckers, then it belongs either in the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article or the UGG Australia article. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

the WSJ says the research was by Experian Hitwise, which compiles its data by monitoring the online habits of 10 million U.S. internet users and that tenaciously trendy sheepskin boots popular for teenage girls while the article says that Uggs are made by Deckers it doesnt actually says its a brand specific search as it uses the two different terms to describe the boots, one the decker US trademark and other the descriptive used by all other manufacturers. suggest

In the lead up to Christmas 2011 US researcher Experian Hitwise who monitor US online activity found that the most searched for apparel accessory by US teenage girls was sheepskin boots

That covers the context of the story indicates that ugg boots are popular, the specific demographic that find them popular and addresses the articles use of differing terms that are used in the US by all manufactures. Gnangarra 12:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow's is a bodacious suggestion, but let's have this copacetic factoid added to Deckers or UGG Australia because it's about one or the other or both, dagnammit. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all Ugg boots editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Another new source

I just found this one with a Google News search: [5] The Peoria Journal Star is a mainstream, daily newspaper and it's a reliable source. I propose that we paraphrase the following for the WP article:

By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots alone. Deckers has aggressively expanded Steadman's trademark portfolio, registering "Uggs" or "Ugh-boots" trademarks in 145 countries. ... In the case of Uggs, even some Australian manufacturers have been found guilty of making counterfeits.

This officially eliminates any challenges regarding reliable sourcing for two facts: (A) UGG trademarks in 145 countries, and (B) Australians being found guilty of counterfeiting UGG brand boots. Also, it adds a brand new fact: "By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Too promotional. No one is disputing they are trademarked in 145 countries. You need to provide sources that name Australian companies found guilty of counterfeiting (and are not a criminal enterprise like the Russian case), an unsupported accusation is not enough. As the boots are not particularly popular in Australia, the percentage of sales is irrelevant, however the article is a good reference for them being popular with bogans. Wayne (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, the sourcing for "trademarked in 145 countries" has been repeatedly challenged. Why exclude the so-called "Russian case"? And why do Australian companies found guilty of counterfeiting have to be identified by name? And the percentage of sales WORLDWIDE is very relevant, since it's an article about ugg boots in the entire world, not just Australia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What has been challenged is having "trademarked in 145 countries" in the lead, not the statement itself. The "Russian case" was I believe a criminal enterprise set up by immigrants to manufacture counterfeits, not a legitimate Australian manufacturer. I have not heard of any Australian manufacturer who has been prosecuted for counterfeiting (Australian made Jumbo Uggs were sold by a foreign company who was prosecuted but the court found that the Jumbo Uggs, although included in the claim by Deckers, were not counterfeit with costs awarded against Deckers), so a blanket claim that they have been needs more reliable sourcing. As you are the one who frequently insists on solid gold sourcing, I'm sure you agree with me. Wayne (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream news media, particularly daily newspapers with fact checkers, are solid gold sources. If you need diffs for the objections to the sourcing for "trademarked in 145 countries," I'll provide them. Like Liangshan Yi reporting previous editing as an IP anon, this demonstrates your remarkably short memory when the facts are inconvenient for you. And the "Russian case" involved a manufacturer located in Australia, not Russia. The supreme irony of Australian manufacturers (and yes it's plural, more than one Australian manufacturer has been found guilty, see the source) being found guilty of counterfeiting UGG brand boots makes this very notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that The Peoria newspaper has a "fact-checker." Sure, this proof is not normally required for a mainstream paper, but the timing of the piece, in a small suburban Chicago paper, and the affiliations of its author, employed at a Chicago law firm when so many of the fully-formed IPs that plague this article geo-locate to Chicago apparently, are quite suspect. Furthermore, if I were editing the main article, I'd jump all over that assertion that unnamed manufacturers have committed illegal acts. Assertions of wrongdoing should be very specific. I think the part of the policy we are looking for here is Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Beyond all that though, counterfeits are by definition a brand issue. Speaking of new editors btw, I notice that Middlemarch has taken up the banner of assertions I would have thought had been put to bed. Is he or she new, or just too shy to speak up on neutral POV? Maybe I should watch this page; this is better that the soaps for resurrections and unlikely coincidences... Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Like your other objections along the same lines below, there are no such requirements or qualifications mentioned at WP:NEWSORG. Wikipedia policy accepts the reliability of a mainstream, fact-checked news organization like the Peoria Journal Star. Peoria is not a suburb of Chicago. Look at a map. Peoria is about 200 miles southwest of Chicago, surrounded by cornfields and its own little squadron of suburbs. One might as well claim that Munich is a suburb of Berlin, or that Lyon is a suburb of Paris. And there's nothing extraordinary about the claims. If counterfeiting is an issue specific to brands, then why isn't the Uggs-N-Rugs v. Deckers trademark case specific to those brands, and removed from this article? In general, the tone of the Ugg boots article and the militant posture of some Australian editors suggests to me that it seeks to expand usage of the generic term worldwide, not just in Australia and New Zealand. This serves the commercial interests of the Australian manufacturers. The tone of the article must reflect the fact that the generic term not only originated in AU/NZ, but also that it is limited to those two countries. An illegal effort by a few Australian companies to recapture market share lost to Deckers, by counterfeiting Deckers brands, is notable for this article because what the Australian companies seek to recapture is a chunk of the market for ugg boots (the boot style), which has grown exponentially due to the marketing efforts of UGG boots (the brand). All this is a notable part of the overall story of ugg boots (the boot style). Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG doesn't say that news organisations are automatically reliable. What it does say is that they are generally reliable, but specific facts need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the strong consensus is that it isn't sufficiently reliable for the statements that you wish to include. You will need consensus to include the material, and that is not forthcoming. - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then, perhaps it's time for WP:RSN. I've done very well there in the past — check with Wayne. I anticipate a huge migration of Australians to that page the moment I set foot on it again, but the last time I was there, the previously uninvolved editors supported me UNANIMOUSLY over Wayne's objections. Please try to keep your comments there short, gentlemen. The purpose is to attract editors who give us a fresh perspective, not scare them off. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. On those grounds I've raised it there. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ugg boots and the Peoria Journal Star. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely UGG Brand boots that means it maybe relvent to UGG Australia not to the style ugg boots, the counterfeit boots were found to have simulated both the labeling of UGG Australa and the packaging. This is were the WP:NPOVN discussion closed with consensus that information relating to Deckers brand should be in one or more of the Decker related articles and not in the style article Gnangarra 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

to quote Jim Davis is a Glendale Heights resident who graduated from Peoria High School and Illinois State University. He presently works in information technology at a Chicago law firm and does freelance writing on the side. I'd like to congratulate you getting published Jim, especially in the next issue immediately after the discussion at WP:NPOVN was closed rejecting the position that this article is about UGG Australia Gnangarra 02:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. MONGO knows enough about me (from corresponding about the Franklin case) to confirm that my first name isn't Jim, and my last name isn't Davis. You're desperate. Go ahead and ask him. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL I didnt mention you I congratulated Jim on such suspiciously amazing timing, how everything you wanted is encapulated within the article by a freelance writer which when you ssearch google news over the past three years, theres two photos taken in tennesse by Jim Davis, a Jim Davis as a CEO of a shoe company, Jim Davis from Garfield plus a couple of other in article mentions. Jim Davis is a common enough name but for a freelance writer its suprising that there are no other article in the last three years(2009,2010,2011) with his byline. Tat in its self is reason to question the reliability of the article. Gnangarra 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Jim Davis qualifies as a reliable source for any of the controversial figures he puts in his article. He is not an investigative journalist; he's employed by a law firm. How could he go get all of the information he produces in his article? Highly dubious. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect the paper needed filler and the piece seemed innocuous to the features editor. Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide proof for this speculation, then you might have something. Otherwise, WP:NEWSORG applies. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG. Binkster, you've overlooked the fact that Davis didn't publish this on his personal blog. It was published by a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. It is the news organization whose reliability is at issue here. Gnangarra, try Googling with the following structure, "By Jim Davis" -Garfield which finds the byline and eliminates any references to the comic strip. I got 4,670,000 hits. Most aren't in any way related to journalism, but some go to mainstream news organizations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

thats as meaningful as googling "Phoenix and Winslow an indescrimiate google search proves nothing, I used google news to find articles in news sources there isnt any other articlse by Jim Davis published in the media. Gnangarra 03:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Bilby. There are plenty of online publications that aren't being picked up by a Google News search. Recently Google expanded its news source indexing to include the most reliable blogs, such as Huffington Post. But it still doesn't cover all news sources — only the larger ones. Besides, the fact that this may be the very first published news article from Jim Davis isn't as important as where it was published: a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. The fact that he's a freelancer, and the possibility that it was his very first published news article, indicate to me (and to any reasonable person) that his article about UGG brand boots was fact-checked even more thoroughly than most. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're dreaming up wishful notions in support of young Mister Davis. I don't think he can be relied upon for hard facts as he gives no hint of his sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Binkster, I'm just guessing. The most salient fact here is that the Journal Star is a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. If they were satisfied with the sources provided by the young Mr. Davis, then so is WP:NEWSORG, and so is Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the only part of that addition which is viable is the "Deckers has aggressively expanded Steadman's trademark portfolio, registering "Uggs" or "Ugh-boots" trademarks in 145 countries", although it would need to be completely rewritten, as it is copyvio as it stands. Of the other two claims: I would seriously question the reliability of a freelance writer who happens to work in a Chicago law firm for the sales figures of Australian companies, and accusing any manufacturer in any country of making counterfeits would need a much more reliable source. - Bilby (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the reliability of either the writer or the publisher, feel free to take it up at WP:RSN. Until then, see WP:NEWSORG, a section of WP:RS: "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm focusing on the "generally" part of that. In this case, I wouldn't regard it as sufficiently reliable for either claim. - Bilby (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a general rule. If you believe this is an exception to the rule, please explain why. Remember that there are nearly 13 million people in Illinois, and hundreds of law firms. If you can demonstrate that Davis works for a firm that has Deckers as a client, show us your proof. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. What expertise would an IT consultant have to make claims on sales figures which would be pretty much impossible to derive, and why should I trust a puff piece in a small newspaper in regard to claims about manufacturers counterfeiting products? I see no expertise to justify trusting the source for the sales figures, and strong claims need strong sources - this is nowhere near strong enough a source to validate the second claim. I'd like to see something much stronger before I accuse a group of manufacturers of criminal acts. - Bilby (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(A) What makes the sales figures "impossible to derive"? Are you certain that they've never been published anywhere in the world? (B) As we've learned from the discussion about Kathy Marks being cited no less than eight twelve times in the article mainspace, one doesn't need any special expertise: being a writer for a mainstream, fact-checked daily newspaper is enough. According to WP:NEWSORG, this is a strong source. And it isn't a particularly strong claim, nor are ALL Australian manufacturers described as "found guilty of making counterfeits" — just "some" of them. Finally, I'm not even sure it's a criminal act to counterfeit a brand. One can be held liable in a lawsuit, but that doesn't make it a criminal act. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Any claim in which you state that manufacturers are engaging in counterfeiting is a strong one. And in regard to the other, exactly how is anyone going to get figures for "all of the Australian manufacturers combined"? If it comes from elsewhere, try using that source. But this one isn't reliable enough. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your objection sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mainstream news organizations are reliable sources. They're strong sources. If you are planning to prove this is an exception to the rule, you must demonstrate why. Perhaps Davis found the Australian sales figures in some trade publication that compiled them. The rest of the article looks well-researched, and as a fact-checked mainstream newspaper, I'm sure the Journal Star editor required him to provide his sources. What you've said so far doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the requirements of proving your case in the real world, Bilby. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If the editor had investigated the sources, they would be in the article. I say this as someone who has been on both sides of the table on such matters. These assertions were passed over as "common knowledge"; otherwise a source would be given. I think we can all agree that this was inappropriate for the counterfeiting assertion, but maybe the editor was in a rush and besides, what harm does such an assertion about Australian companies do in Peoria? Not much, until you pick it up in Wikipedia, hmm? Seriously, the bit about unnamed sources that are disclosed to an editor but not mentioned in the article is the stuff of investigative journalism, where you deal with whistleblowers who may lose their livelihoods for talking to you. A lack of source for a sales figure is simple sloppiness that likely made it into print because the matter did not seem important or implausible to the editor in question. But here it is being challenged and needs better sourcing before it is given a global platform Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say any of that in WP:NEWSORG? Please review that section of Wikipedia policy, part of WP:RS. The reliability of mainstream, fact-checked news organizations is not qualified by any Wikipedia requirement that they must cite their own sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for news organizations do not arise as the source dos not pass the most elementary giggle test. A claim that individuals or groups of businesses broke laws requires good strong sources. This does not cut it. I am not required to prove that they did not source the material; you are the person who carries the burden of proof, as you are the one that wishes to add the material. But the fact that journalists cite their sources for surprising information is common knowledge. Even anonymous sources get cited. Please see coverage of Watergate or the Plame affair for examples. As for Peoria, hmm, well, I guess you would know how far away it is if you live in Chicago, but I remember going through it not long before I arrived in Chicago, the time I went to a conference there. But "suburb" is a minor point. This is not exactly a major daily newspaper, is my point, and it's located in a town which has long been synonymous with "boonie hick town." For all I know this is the equivalent of the Pennysaver or the Eldorado Sun. Does it even have a website? Elinruby (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it has its own website — easily found with a Google search. [6] And it has a daily circulation of 65,000. It's a mainstream, fact-checked news organization. It isn't as big as The New York Times but it's reliable nonetheless. In the absence of any indication that it's unreliable, WP:NEWSORG applies. And I repeat, all of these objections sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You can read it as you will. But any article which is so wonderfully glowing about a company, in a small paper, by a freelance writer, needs to be used carefully. - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, the Peoria Journal Star has a daily circulation of 65,000. This means a readership of about 200,000 daily. It's the largest newspaper in Illinois outside of Chicago. I suggest that it's at least as reliable as the Central Coast Express of Sydney, a bi-weekly paper that isn't even big enough to rate its own article at Wikipedia, but is being used to support the strong claim that Mortels Sheepskin Factory has been manufacturing ugg boots since the 1950s. And I'm certain that a freelance writer would be subjected to even more rigorous fact-checking than a staff writer like Kathy Marks, who wrote wonderfully glowing articles about the little Aussie boot makers, and has been cited no less than eight twelve times in this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Central Coast Express is reporting a claim that is supported by televised interviews and which is neither disputed nor exceptional. By your reasoning (circulation) Kathy Marks is three times as reliable as Davies (using the same reasoning I myself must be 10X as reliable). Aside from that, Marks has covered most of the biggest stories of the last 20 years which gives her significant credibility. Then of course there is the fact that Marks is a British journalist so lacks Davies COI and the "cultural bias" you keep going on about. Spin it any way you like but Wikipedia is not here to promote corporate interests. Wayne (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of these televised interviews ... are they available on YouTube like everything else? Any claim about anyone manufacturing ugg boots before the 1970s is a strong claim. And if Kathy Marks is three times as reliable as Jim Davis and gets 12 citations in the article mainspace, then Jim Davis deserves four citations. But that isn't how WP:RS works, Wayne. The threshold is "mainstream news organization." Either the source is one, or it isn't. The same professional standards are applied. The Peoria Journal Star definitely is one. The Central Coast Express, a biweekly community paper, may not be one but there hasn't been any hesitation about using it. And Davis does not have a COI, unless Bilby can come up with some proof for his allegations. If his nationality creates a COI, then none of us should be working on this article, except Liangshan Yi. And promoting the idea (through constant insinuation throughout the first half of the article) that "ugg" is a generic term worldwide promotes the corporate interests of the Australian boot makers, such as Uggs-N-Rugs and Emu Australia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets try to reach consensus on facts we can all agree to - mathematical facts. There are roughly 22 million people in Australia and 4 million in New Zealand. The population of the world is nearly 7 billion. Only in Australia and New Zealand is a word considered a generic term, which is less that 1% of the population. Why should those of us in Europe or Canada or China be dictated to by a small niche of the population? The fact is mathematically the term Ugg is a brand name in most all countries. Courts of law agreed to that in over a hundred countries. Wikipedia should be concerned about what most of its readers understand, i.e. the generic term for boots made of sheepskin is "sheepskin boots" and a brand name is "Emu" or "Ugg".Middlemarch2256 (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Short answer - no. We have been over this far too many times by now. We use ugg boots for this article because it is the only term which uniquely identifies the style, and it is the term that is used in the country of origin. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

But that is just the point Bilby, Ugg does not "identify the style": 1)what identifies the style, is what they all have in common and 2) what they all have in common, is that they are made of sheepskin, NOT that they all say Ugg or Emu or Bearpaw- because in fact they all don't say that. A generic term is a descriptive term. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Using this argument, what identifies brogue shoe is that they are all made of leather. Just as there are other shoes made of leather, there are other boots made of sheepskin. But we've been through this too many times to warrant further discussion - how about we accept that there is no consensus to rename the article and move on? - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can't oblige you there Bilby. To me (and those not from New Zealand or Australia) your argument doesn't make any sense. It would be as if you were making a Wikipedia entry for Halston clothing and then adding Dior, Chanel and Versace and then insisting they all go under the same brand name. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't make sense then I suggest you invest in a dictionary. "UGG Australia" is a brand name, "Ugg boots" is not. Wayne (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For 99 percent of the world population that has ever read or heard the term "ugg boots," it is understood to refer to a brand, not a style. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present reliable information, not to perpetuate such a misconception. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article. Suggest you take it to UGG Australia where it may be relevant. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wayne, you suggested I invest in a dictionary and "look it up" and I have and it goes to my point again. Ugg is not in the Websters dictionary because it is a brand name. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, Jim Davis works for an "Interlecual Property lawfirm in Chicago. Coincidently, Deckers IP attorneys are mostly based in Chicago. While you are all arguing about the same old trademark dispute you are missing what is really going on. That is, Deckers are trying to rewrite history by moving its founding from Brian Smith in the USA in 1978 to Shane Stenman in Australia (Byron Beach) in 1970. Check out their site (www.uggaustralia.com) and the recently "revised" history. --Fairgomate2012 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. There is no indication that Jim Davis works for an "Interlecual Property lawfirm in Chicago." The only information is that he works for a "law firm," which could handle personal injury lawsuits or divorces for all we know. Deckers IP attorneys, as far as I can tell, are mostly based in Australia and the UK. Those are the two law firm websites we've located so far. If you have reliable sources for all these claims you've made below, please post links. Otherwise, there's no way we're going to change the article based solely on your unsupported assertions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Give it a rest. You are the self proclaimed legal "expert" in all things Deckers so you know very well that Deckers primary lawyers are Chicago based Greer, Burns & Crain. Jim Davis specializes in patent and trademark litigation, and patent prosecution. He works for Chicago law firm McAndrews, Held and Malloy which itself claims to specialise in intellectual property cases. Wayne (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. (A) Are you sure that the Jim Davis who works for the McAndrews firm is the same Jim Davis who wrote the Journal Star article and (B) if that's true, doesn't that eliminate the COI claim against Davis, since the McAndrew firm and the Greer firm are not the same? You're saying, in effect, that the coach of Melbourne Victory FC can't be used as a reliable source for the Melbourne Heart FC article. Also, (C) doesn't this mean that Jim Davis has enormous expertise in the area, since he "specializes in patent and trademark litigation, and patent prosecution"? And doesn't this make him a solid gold reliable source? (D) I've never claimed any legal expertise whatsoever. If I have, I'm sure you can post a diff. Otherwise, stop lying. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Deckers retains several Chicago law firms. As Deckers do not name them, without confirmation that McAndrews is not, and never has been, one of them, all Chicago law firms are suspect in my book. Then of course you need to keep in mind that "enormous expertise" in the interpretation of law counts for nothing in certain areas as it is a lawyers job to interprete the law to get a desired result even if that interpretation contradicts common sense or the intent of the law. Wayne (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Its the "shuffle" and the "distortion" of the facts that you are all mising!

1. 'The Ugg boot line, which originated in Australia in the 1970s, has grown more than 5,000 percent since being purchased by a U.S. corporation'

Correction: UGG Australia originated in the USA in 1978 and has always been a USA corporation, not Australian. Smith claimed that he intorduced Ugg boots to the USA in 1978 and that the word UGG "Had no meaning in the industry"..

2. 'Ugg's founder, Australian surfer Shane Steadman, sold his company to Deckers Outdoor Corp. of California in 1995'

Correction: Britan Smith founded UGG Australia in the USA almost a decade after Shane Stedman and Stedman sold his trademarks (not his ongoing company to Brian Smith, not to deckers. His trademarks were worthless as a. He never policed his trademarks and b. They had become common usage or generic in Australia.

3. "Deckers has aggressively expanded Steadman's trademark portfolio, registering "Uggs" or "Ugh-boots" trademarks in 145 countries. That's up from the 10 countries that Steadman was selling in"

Correction: Steadman never had a "trademark portfolio" and "Deckers" did not register "Ugh-boots", only UGG.

Also, If Steadman was selling in 10 countries before Smith, wouldnt that change who introduced them to the USA?

The experienced editors here need to watch this closely, Look at the UGG Australia page and its links to "Shoe brands of Australia"...should be "Shoe brands of the USA: (same for clothing brands from Australia).

All of this, and last years "PROPAGANDA" articles about how Stedman "invented Ugg boots" is happening because Deckers are trying a case in the USA against their biggest competitor "Bearpaw" for "tradedress against the classic style, not the name, the style, that they are claming they invented and own and Stedmans Australian history and the 1970 date is very helpfull in their agenda.

Should Deckers win their case, its over for all of you. They will have a monopoly on the classic style and will be able to stop anyone selling that style in the USA and eventually, their other markets through this presedent.

I suggest that you all pay more attention to the subtle little "tweaks" that have been taking place in the history and the articles that have been apperaing repositioning UGG as an Aussie company, with an Aussie history, founded by an Aussie. You all need to add the Bearpaw case to "pending USA cases" as it is very, very relevant to disputes. There are several sites where you can download the case and it have been in the news so the overview is easy to access. --Fairgomate2012 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not heard of the Bearpaw case and I find it very revealing that Phoenix and Winslow has not brought it up considering his tendentious perseverance in getting every case, including the most obscure and irrelevant, included in this article. If indeed the case is regarding the actual style itself rather than brand names it would explain several editors persistance in trying to push that claim despite their failure to get consensus for such a change and all evidence to the contrary...Pro Deckers propaganda has been a problem for a long time but we should also be wary of any Bearpaw influence to the article this case may encourage. Wayne (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My God, not another commercial POV pushing its own barrow. I think we have lost sight of the fact that this article should really just be about how the sheepskin is manufactured into a boot of distinctive style. Unfortunately, due to uggs becoming fashionable, many commercial interests want to claim uggs as their own for commercial gain and to corner the market as a monopoly. This is relevant to the article, but surely it's a minor detail and should still be relegated as such to a minor part of the article. Regardless of the outcome of all these court cases, the fact remains that the commercial interests are not core to what ugg boots are. Donama (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comercial POV?, Deckers are trying to monopolize this style and you are missing the point...http://www.entertainmentlawmatters.com/?p=1063#more-1063 They are claining to own this style, forget Bearpaw, this is bigger than the name and if successful, they will own the style, end of story... --Fairgomate2012 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fairgomate2012, most of us are fully aware of Deckers' strategy in this area; however, preventing this in the outside world is not the focus of this article. We seek to maintain this article about the generic style of footwear (as distinct from a trademarked "brand") because it has a long and continuing history and the term "ugg boots" is the natural and only way to refer to such a concept and rightly deserves an entry. While various editors here very likely have opinions on the common sense of US-based court decisions regarding the brandedness of "Ugg" or about how Deckers conduct their business, our goals should not be to thwart these activities, but rather, to maintain a Wikipedia article about the original concept. If the two coincide due to possible interference here by Deckers then that's just a side affect. At the end of the day, regardless of what any editors think, if Deckers, due to the manipulations of which you speak, somehow becomes the only company able to sell this style of boots in the US, or even in Australia, it has little bearing on the article except insofar as we might mention this fact. In short, we're fighting for ugg boots, NOT fighting against Deckers.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Mike, if he is correct in his assertions, which I have not checked btw, then they would explain the stubborn re-introduction of the same claims over and over again on this page. I don't care about ugg boots, myself; but I do care about Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I absolutely agree with you. I consider it unlikely that while Deckers go to the extremes of policing Google (search for "ugg boots" on there and see how many results have been blocked due to legal threats) that they would then leave Wikipedia, so prominent in Google search results, unmolested. It would just be completely counter to their online MO. I don't disagree that this would explain a lot, I just meant that my goals for Wikipedia article's are not influenced by who is allowed to sell what in whatever country, but about presenting reality. :)Mandurahmike (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Elinruby, I for one would like to strongly welcome your participation in this article. I think you can add a lot to the integrity of the article. The fact that you don't care about the product but care about Wikipedia is exactly what the doctor ordered.Mandurahmike (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - grammar fix

"with Oprah Winfrey featured" --> "with Oprah Winfrey featuring". Donama (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian Smith says he was wearing them as a kid

Here is a video of UGG Australia founder Brian Smith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UppyxEzuzOU Brian says he was wearing them as a kid. He is about 60 and so he must have been wearing them in Australia in the late 50s or early 60s. Does anyone have a birthdate for Brian Smith?--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian Smith is already on record stating that "Ugg boot" was a generic name long before the name was first trademarked. Wayne (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember first seeing them in the late 1960s and they were called Ugg boots then. My ex bought a pair in the early 1970s and I had never heard of any other name used for them, or alternate spelling of the name for that matter. It may also be relevant that in 1973 Ugg boots were first manufactured in England, and sold there as "Ugg boots". The company changed it's name to The Original Ugg Co. in 1991 and registered the name UGG as a trademark. Despite trademarking the name, the owner still admitted that he considered the name generic. Brian Smith tried to buy the British trademark in 1994 but it fell through when Deckers bought him out. Deckers licensed the use of the UGG trademark from The Original Ugg Co. in 1996 and eventually purchased it in 1999. Wayne (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, that quote from Brian Smith has been changed and also taken out of context. What he actually said was: "We always called them Uggs, Brian Smith says, "long before it was a trademarked brand." Brian Smith, Founder UGG Holdings, Inc. Los Angeles Magazine October 1st, 2001. In the actual quote, Smith is referencing his Australian background while being interviewed in the USA about his USA company. It is also important to note that trademarks are national and so what is generic or common in one country has little to do with a trademarks validity in another country

What I was asking here is if anyone knows when Smith was born as there is some controversy in the article above about Australian Shane Stedman who has made claim to have invented and named the boots in 1971. If the Stedman claim is not factual, these articles will become more accurate and any articles about Stedman,s claim can be discounted as untrue and therefore, not added to this topic.

Additionally, the 1991 UK trademark discounts the "generic" argument in the UK as generally trademarks, in the country in question, are not granted if they are common or generic at the time. It could have been that the UK company simply beat Smith to the trademark or that the company saw Smiths success in the USA and decided to copy it. Another possible explanation could be that Ugh was the generic or common name (as per the Oxford and Maquarie dictionary) and that Ugg was the new unique name that Smith used. Whatever the answer is, can we keep this little section focused on Smith and "if" there is any factual evidence of the style and the name prior to Stedman? --Wikiguy1974 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The boots were definitely known to the public as Ugg boots in the 1960s, thus pre-dating Steadman, but there is little documentation as they were generally sold in street stalls or factory direct. There is NO evidence that Steadman was the first to name them Uggs. "Ugh" was never the generic name (at least in my state) and it is possible that Steadman was the first to call them Ughs because he couldn't trademark the generic name. It is telling that he trademarked "Ugh", "Ugh boots" and "UGG Australia" but not the word Ugg on it's own. Under Australian/British law, generic names can be trademarked, as long as the name is part of a logo which is likely how Steadman was able to trademark "UGG Australia". Both the Oxford and Maquarie dictionaries entries stated that Ugg was the generic name until 2005 when Deckers requested Oxford change their definition (which they did) and the Maquarie changed after Deckers threatened legal action. Wayne (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Brian Smith, he moved to Santa Monica in 1977 to commercialise grass-skiing. In 1978 he answered an an add in a surf magazine for a US distributor for Australian Ugg boots made by "Country Leather". At this time he said that Uggs (under that name) were already being sold in several US surf shops that had brought them in from Australia (by the shops owners returning from surf events). Smith registered the company "Ugg Imports" to sell the boots and in 1979 trademarked the name "Ugg" in the US. Although Smith bought Steadman's trademarks for use by his own company, which was now called Ugg Holdings Inc, Steadman apparently had no involvement in US sales. Smith graduated from university in 1977 so that would make him in his late 50s. He is the founder of Ecolite Concrete and is still Chairman so he can be contacted there if anyone is interested. Wayne (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne. You are correct, a composite trademark can contain any generic name as its the combination of the words that makes a trademark unique. This is why there are now 122 composite trademarks in Australia containing the word Ugg (http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon.application_start). I think that in your above you have mixed the timeline though, Stedman trademarked in Australia "ugh-boots" and then later "ugh" but I don't see where he ever trademarked Ugg Australia, in Australia. That one appears to be first filed by Smith.

Also, Smith never trademarked the work "Ugg" as his first trademark was a composite "Original UGG boots UGG Australia". UGG was first trademarked by Deckers some time after they purchased the company from Smith.

One thing that seems very clear though, both principals of UGG and Deckers, Brian Smith and Douglas Otto are quoted in interviews (see Wall Street Journal for Ottos comments) saying that a. Ugg boots were in Australia in the 1960s and b. Ugg boots were also in the USA in the early 1970s. Both of these claims combined with the other statements would make Stedmans claims that her invented and named the style in 1973 a total fabrication (see: http://www.news.com.au/world/ugg-man-happy-to-trade-dollars-for-surf/story-e6frfkyi-1226006046295 ). This was my point and it seems that there is widespread consensus on this point.

Now it is not clear if both Smith and Otto were referring to the boots generically or as a brand but what is clear is that the style was around in Australia before Stedmans 1973 claim and in the USA before Smith first sold the boots in 1978. I recommend that this point in made clear and that the above article about Stedman or quoting Stedman not be allowed in this entry as it has been proven to be untrue. --Wikiguy1974 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that they all had leather soles originally. It could be a case of stretching the truth, perhaps Steadman was the first to come up with the rubber sole. He could also be the originator of the "Ugh" name as well as I was not aware of that name for them until I read this article. Wayne (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

There should be a section regarding how they are worn - in Australia they are worn like slippers, only in the house etc, whereas Americans seem to think they are outdoor shoes. 118.208.105.246 (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific changes to the article, if you want to edit it yourself you'll need to wait a few weeks for the protection to be removed. However please read WP:VERIFY and WP:OR before you do--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Its also wrong, uggs have been recognised a the standard bogan dress for decades jeans, tshirt and uggs. Gnangarra 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Both are correct. With the exception of "surfies" who wear them at the beach, they are standard bogan dress but the "non-bogan" public have always worn them as slippers. Wayne (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get some reliable sources for any of this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem when a shoe is not notable. The media doesn't report on them. We have plenty of personal accounts from Australians that this was the case and we also have the sitcom Housos which was promoted in television advertisements with the revelation that the public housing residents wear UGGs, "the footwear of choice for bogans" which supports part of the claim. Wayne (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also in Area 7's song "Nobody Likes a Bogan" - the music video features bogans in a variety of stereotypically bogan situations and modes of dress. If you look for the video on youtube you'll see the girlfriend "Shazza" wearing Ugg Boots from 0:25. As Wayne says, it's not something that you're going to find in an encyclopaedia - it's something that's evidenced throughout popular culture. For situations like this the dozens of pop culture sources that could be called up can easily prove the nature of Ugg Boots in Australia. - Part of me thinks this is probably not the most important issue to be dealing with in this article, however, reflection makes me consider that the fact that this isn't mentioned, while we get to hear all about celebrities and how much they fancy them, does really skew the article. It's similar to how I added "uggies" in the "also known as" - a far more common nickname than "uggs" in their countries of origin, but this simple addition was reverted. It's almost as if someone would prefer ugg boots were defined by US commercial discourse alone.....Mandurahmike (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture (such as a TV sitcom) is not defined as a reliable source in WP:RS. In the particular case of a TV sitcom, it's hard to know where accurate representation ends and exaggeration, caricature or satire begins. Editors' observations of popular culture qualify as WP:OR. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. We can use this source. I feel it should be prominently mentioned that Ugg boots were and still remain a symbol of bogan behaviour in Australia despite their popularity overseas. Wayne (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A sample from the 1,040,000 google results for Ugg boots are worn by bogans if you need more.

• there are now large numbers of flannel-shirt-wearing, flag-waving, ute-driving, ugg-boot clad, mullet-coiffed and McMansion-residing westies who wear the bogan tag with pride.
• bogans wear singlets, flannelette shirts, thongs or Ugg boots and ill-fitting track-suit pants or shorts.
• Miss Australia Jesinta Campbell will wear ugg boots on stage at Miss Universe next month during the national costume section of the competition. Hers will be special high heels ones, but it sounds a bit bogan...It got us wondering, should uggs be allowed out in public? Poll results: YES 61% NO 39%.
• bogan attire is usually black in colour, jeans being tight and torn across the knees and on the lower bum cheek. The foot wear is usually one of the following 4; DB's Desert Boots or "Rollers", Ugg Boots, Rossie Shearers boots or no shoes at all.
• Coffs Harbour has the Big Banana, Goulburn is home to the Big Merino - could Albion Park be home to the Big Ugg Boot? A street poll at Albion Park led to the suggestion that a big ugg boot could become a more permanent symbol of bogan pride.
• The rise of budget airlines has paved the way for a very unpleasant phenomenon which is affecting all air passengers – bogan travellers! You know you’re on a bogan airline when ...Hosties are wearing ugg boots. Wayne (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Concerns about quality section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Delete section, with possibility of inclusion of paraphrased material elsewhere. The first paragraph reads like advertising copy and from WP:NOTADVERTISING "All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style". Such a large quote falls foul of that. The second paragraph seems like another breach of WP:NOT, it is not an encyclopedia's job to do product reviews and comparisons. LuckyLouie suggestion of moving to a new section or weaving back into the Design section seems fine. There is already a paragraph there about synthetic boots which you could expand on.--Salix (talk): 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Currently, in the section entitled "Concerns about quality", we have:

According to the Australian Sheepskin Association, "Consumers should beware of fake ugg boots. The dictionary definition of an 'ugg boot' is 'a sheepskin boot with the wool on the inside'. An ugg boot must be made of real sheepskin. Due to the high cost of genuine sheepskin, one of the first warning bells will be a so called 'ugg boot' advertised at a very cheap price. ... Sheepskin is a natural product which breathes, absorbs moisture and provides a warmth and comfort superior to any synthetics. (Most synthetics become very smelly with wear)."[7]

Independent testing by Channel 7 in Perth, Western Australia ranked one brand of Australian synthetic ugg boots made in China, Aussie Sheep and Wool Products, best in durability; Deckers Ugg boots, which are also made in China and were priced at over twice that of the other brands tested, were the highest quality boots made of genuine sheepskin; and all the Australian made sheepskin boots were ranked behind Deckers. The Emu Ridge, Skiniks and Mortels brands "fared badly for quality".[8]

This section has been the subject of dispute, with edit warring over including the content. The first paragraph has not been particularly problematic, but is worth raising because it is entirely sourced to the Australian Sheepskin Association Inc., who are unlikely to be unbiased as to whether or not sheepskin is better than synthetics. The section paragraph has had more debate. The main argument for including it is that comparative testing is relevant to the article. The main arguments for excluding it are that including only one comparative test is placing undue weight on its results, and that Today Tonight is not a reliable source when it comes to such tests.

Should this section be included? - Bilby (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Both paras fail as promotional and POV. Keep it simple, e.g. "Ugg boots are made from sheepskin, synthetic materials, or a combination. While sheepskin is generally more expensive than synthetics, some prefer sheepskin's moisture handling.(ref) Independent testing found some boots made with synthetics more durable than sheepskin, though without a direct correlation between material types and product quality.(ref)" Jojalozzo 05:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• articles opening sentence says it all Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are a unisex style of sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole. Therefore use of other materials cowhide, rooskins, or synthetics arent Ugg boots as defined by the article itself. The use of alternative materials where the boot is still called an ugg should be covered in separate section and in a neutral tone. ASA isnt independent and should not be used as a source for making generalised negatove comments about synthetics as described, though a block quote in a section on synthetics would be OK. Secondly Today tonight, a current affair and similar such shows arent the most reliable media sources around, I'd be even more cautious in calling its product researches as independent, authorative or scientific thats better left to people like Choice Magazine. Both of these need more transparent, reliable independent sources for the statements to yield any encyclopeadic value Gnangarra 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Per Joja. I think this was the only arguement that had general acceptance in the original discusion. Wayne (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• According to Joja, a pared down version of the section should be retained. Per Gnangarra, the quote from the ASA is all right if used as a blockquote in a separate section about synthetics. Concerns about using a single quality study have been raised, but no one raising these concerns has offered a link to any other quality studies. I suggest that we keep the paragraph on the quality study intact. If another independent quality study surfaces, existing material in that paragraph can be shortened to make room for it. The ASA quote should be turned into a blockquote, preceded by a very brief discussion of synthetics. Both the dictionary and the lede sentence define "uggs" as being made out of sheepskin, so any other material isn't properly an ugg boot, and the article should reflect that. Then remove the "Concerns about quality" section header, and it's done. The objection to the reliability of the source is questionable due to its timing. When the quality study said simply that an Australian company made the best boots, everyone was fine with it. There were no objections raised at all regarding this source. Now that the section goes into more detail and more precisely describes the results of the study, there are objections. Channel 7 itself did not conduct the study; that was left to a third party that hasn't been called into question or discredited in any way. This is not a WP:BLP situation; that would require the ironclad sourcing that the Australian editors are seeking. If it were a BLP article, I'd be more concerned. But it isn't. I think we have sufficient indicia of reliability to use the source for this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not just proposing a pared down version but one that eliminates the brand names as promotional and unnecessary. I also oppose quoting ASA due to its strong POV/COI - instead briefly summarize it. All these details are WP:UNDUE given this very weak sourcing. Jojalozzo 04:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that the quote from the ASA was rejected by all editors as promotional and unnecessary with the sole exception of Phoenix and Winslow and later by an anon supporting him. It should also be noted that the original text did not say an "Australian company made the best boots" but that one Australian brand of synthetic boot made in China was of superior quality to all sheepskin boots. The sentence was discussed and accepted only on the basis of it being a short comparison of synthetic Vs sheepskin and that brands should not be mentioned. Wayne (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think that since we're opening this up for an RFC, we should mention it under "Politics, government and the law" (in addition to "Society, sports and culture"). There are important issues of trademark law discussed at length here, whether the discussion is limited to the IP Australia case or not. I think everyone agrees that the IP Australia case must be included, so a discussion of trademark law should be included in the RFC. Furthermore, I'd like to discuss the possibility of an NPOV problem. In my opinion, the general tone of this article is biased against Deckers. A genuinely NPOV article would recognize the overwhelming dominance of Deckers regarding this boot style. Uggs-N-Ruggs appears to have only two employees, a man and his wife. Mortels appears to be about the same. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Also, see WP:CSB. An article tends to attract editors from a particular demographic group, and consciously or unconsciously, it reflects the bias of that demographic group at the expense of others. I suggest this article needs a more international perspective. We need to review the lede. We need to be sure that the "generic term" argument is properly treated as a minority viewpoint. And we need previously uninvolved editors to provide input. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, your statements here seem to suggest that you view Wikipedia as being about what people and the courts "think" or their "viewpoints". Once again, there are ugg boots and Ugg Boots(TM) - we have different articles for these. Just because a lot of people's "viewpoint" as you put it, is that ugg boot is a brandname doesn't extinguish the existence of the original generic use of the word and the boot style this signifies. I believe the entire tone of the article, rather than being "biased against Deckers" is one of constantly reminding people ABOUT Deckers to the point a needed article about the original concept of "ugg boots" is turned into an article about court disputes with Deckers. I draw everyone's attention to the "Ugg Australia" article which discusses the non generic trademark as it exists in the USA and other countries and ask, why we need this content repeated here - the only purpose it serves in repetition here is to quash the other point of view. This other point of view isn't even alternate - "Ugg Boots TM" and "ugg boots" do not need to be mutually exclusive. I think the existence of the other article and the history of ugg boots as a generic term (which did not just end when Deckers trademarked the term) needs to be kept in mind before we decide to fill this one up with more and more disclaimers and slant toward Deckers point of view. Mandurahmike (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you seem resistant to the idea of an article with international perspective. Let me remind you once again that this is not the Australian Wikipedia. This is the Wikipedia for all English-speaking people in the entire world, including the Netherlands and Turkey. And even the United States. Fancy that. If this article is to be limited to a discussion of the boot style in Australia and New Zealand, then the hatnote should say so. It doesn't. Every effort to change it to say that has been vigorously reverted. So it's about the boot style in the entire world. Therefore, necessarily, it MUST include the material about efforts to use the generic term defense in the entire world. I've seen the strategy you've apparently espoused being used in other articles: (A) WP:OWN the article that most casual Wikipedia users will find with their search engines (in this case, Ugg boots); (B) dispose of all material you don't want most casual users to see, by dumping it into some other article or articles that's unlikely to be found with a search engine (in this case, UGG Australia). This strategy has been used very effectively at the Barack Obama biography, where a brigade of Obama groupies has carefully insulated Dear Leader from anything remotely resembling criticism. Compare that article to such biographies as the ones about George W. Bush and Tony Blair, which are packed with criticism from top to bottom. Mike, are you trying to employ the same strategy here? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory about Barack Obama is noted with amusement. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for international perspective, but we have that in the Deckers and Ugg Australia entries and the fact that Deckers are mentioned throughout this article. As Deckers and yourself have been so eager to point out "Ugg Boots (TM)" and what people refer to ugg boots are two different things. They are clearly and indisputably a generic "sort of thing" in Australia and NZ and wherever else they are known but not trademarked. By filling this article with extraneous Deckers content you're doing exactly the opposite of what you preach here - you're ignoring international perspectives and cultural perspectives in favour of the US legal and fashion one. We've already got articles for the two different things (generic ugg boots" and the brand known as "Ugg Australia") as well as more than adequate coverage on Deckers entry and with links throughout. Why do you think we need more on the one surviving bastion of the very real historical information of the Ugg Boot? Since we already have two articles and as everyone seems to agree we have two DIFFERENT subjects, why should the one subject have to be imposed so strongly over the other? I'd urge neutral editors in this dispute to check out the "Ugg Australia" and "Deckers Outdoor Corp" and then decide if you think all of that information needs to be repeated on the generic ugg boot entry. Also, you might also check out the entry on "Today Tonight" which is repeatedly being raised as a relevant source here and decide if you think this piece of tabloid TV journalism is a reliable reference.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an article on the style where trademark law is peripheral and largely undue. It is only of value in articles concerning brands. The dominance of Deckers regarding this boot style is more than adequately covered and satisfies an international perspective. We are not here to use WP to promote a particular brand. The "generic term" argument is not a minority viewpoint in Australia where the vast majority, if not all, of the general public consider the term generic and the article makes it very clear that this is a viewpoint restricted to Australia and New Zealand. A good example was mentioned in Parliment; what if someone here trademarked a logo containing the words "cowboy boot", would you accept removing those words from all Wikipedia articles? Uggs-N-Ruggs and Mortels are mentioned because they are the most vocal and most often reported. Names of other companies mentioned were removed long ago on the grounds that this article is not about brands. For example one large previously mentioned UGG boot manufacturer was Westhaven Industries which is a non profit company that only employs disabled workers. Wayne (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, no one is suggesting for a moment that the term "ugg boot" should be removed from all Wikipedia articles. So stop pretending that, please. What we're insisting is that the word "generic" must not be used in this particular article, unless it is being used in the trademark disputes section, to describe legal arguments and decisions by courts and IP authorities. We also have one very brief mention of it in the lede, to refer to the trademark dispute. I'm fine with that, IF AND ONLY IF it is balanced by the opposing point of view as currently worded: "There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether 'ugg' is a protected trademark, or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection." Your repeated deletion of the words "a protected trademark or" in that sentence slants the lede in favor of the generic term argument. The lede is all-important. Many people don't even read the rest of an article. The "protected trademark" position is shared by 145 countries; the "generic term" position by only two. Again I direct your attention to the hatnote, where repeated efforts to add five words to make it say, "This article is about the boot style in Australia and New Zealand" have been vigorously reverted. Since it's about the boot style in the entire world and Wikipedia policy requires a truly international perspective, 145 countries (including all the most densely populated ones — China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Pakistan, the US and Brazil) heavily outweigh two small countries, and WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE require treating the generic term position as a minority viewpoint at best, more likely WP:FRINGE. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims, such as the one that ugg boots are trademarked in 145 countries, require extraordinarily robust sourcing. So far the only source for this claim is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugg_boots&diff=394079797&oldid=393550371 , a .pdf uploaded to a free hosting website, which even if genuine is merely the point of view of one of the internecine squabblers involved in a dispute. This is barely reliable enough a reference to source a statement that Deckers claims a trademark in so many countries, never mind that it holds them; particularly as the list given includes Australia and New Zealand, where the phrase is emphatically not a trademark. Any assertion that the phrase "ugg boot" is trademarked in any of the other countries you mentioned would need to be much better sourced than that.

You also misunderstand the concept of fringe theories. It is reliably documented that non-trademarked references to ugg boots long pre-date the arrival of Deckers on the scene, so even if as it seems they have managed to convince Americans otherwise, it is merely a case of the machinery of State making a mistake (as has been known to happen). If any point of view could be said to be fringe, it would be that of the Deckers corporation in ignoring all history prior to their entry onto the scene. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing "extraordinary" about the claim, Dave. An example of an extraordinary claim would be, "George W. Bush won the Congressional Medal of Honor while flying 102 combat missions in the Vietnam War." Since most of us know he was in the Air National Guard and never served overseas, that would require some extraordinary sourcing. But with roughly 200 sovereign nations in the world, and with Deckers approaching $1 billion in sales this year by protecting UGGS branding, I would be very surprised to learn that they were so careless that they didn't obtain trademark protection in around 120 or 150 of them. Registering a trademark costs a few thousand dollars in the big countries, and a few hundred in the smaller ones. For corporations, trademarks are the cheapest insurance policies available to protect the investment that a well-known brand represents. This "claim" by Deckers is very easily confirmed with a brief search of the WIPO website. Be my guest.

Regarding WP:FRINGE, the facts about what's mainstream and what's fringe often change over time. Two thousand years ago, there were a majority of people in the "known world" who believed that the Earth was flat, the Sun revolved around it, all matter was composed of just four elements, and immortal gods with names like Jupiter and Neptune ruled us all. Here we are 2000 years later, and anyone advocating such beliefs would surely be called "fringe." In the case at hand, in your "known world" 42 years ago, everyone (or nearly everyone) thought that "ugg boots" referred to a boot style. And here we are, 42 years later, in a world where over 95% of the people live in countries where UGGS is a registered trademark, belonging to Deckers. Public opinion polling submitted to the federal court in the American trademark case confirms that an overwhelming majority believe it's a brand, not a boot style. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and it requires a global perspective. Repeated efforts to remove the five words "in Australia and New Zealand" from the hatnote have been vigorously reverted. Blame the Australians who have reverted that, Dave, because now it's an article about the boot style in the entire world, not just Australia and New Zealand. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your claim about "the machinery of State making a mistake," I don't see any reliable sources to support that claim except in one tiny country named Australia. In the rest of the world, each and every time somebody went to court and claimed, "the machinery of State made a mistake," and that UGGS is a generic term, he ended up failing in spectacular fashion and paying Deckers' costs. In some cases, he went to prison for contempt of court. You saying that it's so doesn't make it so. Sorry, but Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing to support your claim that in all these other countries, "the machinery of State made a mistake" — reliable sourcing like what we see in this article, Dave. I look forward to seeing those links whever you're ready. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I found the first paragraph more problematic than the second. If channel 7 are truly independent, and we are just reporting what they are saying, then there doesn't seem to be much of a neutrality problem there, although it would be nice to have some more sources. However, in the first paragraph the only viewpoint is that of the Australian Sheepskin Association, which is obviously not going to be neutral. In my opinion we need to balance this by including the opinion of one of the synthetics manufacturers, or by removing it if we can't find such an opinion. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This may prove to be a reasonable compromise. I'll start looking for a statement from the Aussie synthetic manufacturer that "won" the Channel 7 comparative tests. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Channel 7 is not independent. Being a commercial TV channel, it is associated with advertorial and contrived and overhyped so-called investigative reporting. If this is the source for all this the whole lot should not be included in the article. Donama (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Domama -- using sources from Today Tonight would be akin to citing The National Enquirer. It's the lowest form of Australian journalism that lives from creating controversy out of nothing. That's what it does. This is not even close to a credible source and has no place on this article, or any other article.Mandurahmike (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow has failed to gain any support for his rejection of the term "generic" nor for keeping the "Concerns about quality" section in any shape or form. Consensus appears unlikely to change, can we move on? Wayne (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Now that all the Australian editors have posted, you want a rush to judgment. But as you're well aware, an RfC is supposed to last 30 days; conveniently enough, the protection on this article will also last 30 days. Also, as you're equally aware, Factchk and the anon editor 63.171.91.193 have supported me on both points all along, Mr. Stradivarius supports keeping the second paragraph of the "Concerns about quality" section, and Joja also wants to keep a paraphrased version of the ASA quote. In baseball terminology, the first two batters have struck out in the top of the first inning, and you want to declare victory for the home team. It's very, very early in the game. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself when mentioning the IP or is it just coincidence you both are editing out of Boston?TMCk (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not editing out of Boston. Please stop fabricating evidence to support the next WP:SSP witch hunt. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So this isn't you then?TMCk (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My IP locator shows 24.13.94.26 in Chicago, Illinois. Jojalozzo 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant they're both editing out of Chicago, not Boston.TMCk (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude consumer tests etc. which are of no encyclopaedic value. This is an encyclopaedia article not a consumer report. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• No, the section should not be included in the article Consumer awareness information is not suitable for this article (and is probably appropriate only very rarely at Wikipedia). In addition, as noted above, the source is the opposite of reliable, and the article is just a space filling puff piece. Moreover, it should not be a surprise that boots which cost under half the price of the leading brand were found to have an inferior quality in that they failed more readily when pulled apart in a test. This article cannot and should not provide advice about which brand is best, and fortunately the article does not need to provide such advice as it is supposed to be an encyclopedic explanation of some simple facts regarding "ugg boots". Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Drop this section. There is nothing unusual about cheaper products (whether counterfeit or otherwise) being inferior quality. Are we to add warnings to all articles about consumer goods that cheap goods are not as good as premium versions? Either way, Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. Particularly when what is being discussed is blindingly obvious. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Question - do any participants here have a conflict of interest in the topic? Jojalozzo 23:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a lot of accusations in both directions, but as far as I am aware nothing in regard to current participants has ever been confirmed. I generally just AGF and assume that strong opinions are simply that, polarised over years of back-and-forth debate. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To further what Bilby said, there have also been certain insinuations that the Australian editors involved in this thread are here only out of some sense of national pride/bias; however, I contend that they do so because they are in a position of comprehending the nature of "ugg boots" as a generic term in a manner people from outside pre-Deckers ugg boot culture are unable to. For example, in a previous dispute a neutral editor mentioned that they had to so some research to understand the issue and after doing this concluded that this situation is akin to if something well known in the US such as "flip flops" were trademarked in another country and became a worldwide brand. Would that mean the concept of "flip flops" being generic, their history as generic, and their continued history and status as generic in their countries of origin need to be played down, reworded in light of "court decisions in the nations of trademark" to play down genericism -- particularly when comparable articles such as "Flip Flops USA" (this article doesn't exist, it's only an example to draw a parallel with the "Ugg Australia" and "Deckers Outdoor Corporation" entries which not only exist, but repeat much of the content that's gradually making its way into the generic ugg boots entry) exist already to differentiate the two different items and histories? I argue that Australian editors due to their presence within the "generic culture of origin" of ugg boots come pre-informed with the knowledge the neutral editor in the previous discussion only reached after research. Even if an Australians were here out of purely national pride (which I don't believe any are - I think it's just a relevant subject that Australians might gravitate toward just as Americans might toward an entry about "Baseball") wouldn't that even validate the concept of ugg boots as a generic term, given that it's apparently so culturally established that it prompts such reactions?Mandurahmike (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with that statement by Mike. First, it is implying that Australians are the only ones qualified to have an opinion on this topic. Simply being exposed to sheepskin boots prior to Americans does not preclude bias. It’s very telling in my opinion that this page has covered the trademark dispute from the beginning and indeed may have come into existence in an effort to discredit Deckers’ claims. I don’t doubt that sheepskin boots have existed in some form in Australia for a long time. I don’t doubt that today, in that country, most folks use the word in a descriptive manner. What I’ve always doubted is the “age old generic” line that comes from the Australian editors on this page. IP Australia would not have registered Shane Stedman’s trademark in 1971 unless they had made a legal determination that he had a right to it. It appears that in 1971 the Sheepskin boot trade in Australia also accepted UGH as a proprietary trademark because no one objected. This is the case in nearly every other country in the world where the trademark has been validated by a trademark registration (trademark offices don’t allow generic terms to be registered).

I’m actually glad that Mike brought up the discussion of baseball. Since the 19th century, Americans were told that baseball was a purely American invention and had nothing in common with British games such as rounders. Recent evidence, however, has shown that baseball descended from something similar to rounders and therefore was likely imported in some early form. The idea that baseball was not an American invention was in fact covered up by the Major Leagues in the late 19th century out of nationalist pride. It shows how pride can color the origins of anything commonplace. I know Australians felt shocked and offended that an American company owns the exclusive right to mark their boots as UGG outside of Australia, but the reality is that outside of Australia and New Zealand UGG is known as a brand and nothing else and that fact is certainly notable.--Factchk (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is highly unlikely to have been created to discredit Deckers’ claims. This article predated the Deckers article by two years. Also, Deckers are not sold in Australia so most Australians do not know or care that the brand exists. It is more likely that the Deckers article was created to discredit this one. As for IP Australia, they do not do a search to find if the term is generic, it is up to the applicant (ie:Deckers) to do that and IP Australia accepts that the applicant has done the research. A generic term can still registered if the trade mark in it's entirety is designed so that the product can be distinguished from marks used for similar goods (see trade marks act 1995 - sect 41). IP Australia then announce the application in their trade journal and then register the mark if no one objects in the next three months. No one objected because no one knew the name was being trademarked, because who reads the trade mark trade journal? Trade mark offices DO allow a generic term to be registered, if they dont know it is generic. Ugg boots were, and still are, considered the footwear of choice for bogans so advertising was always rare, it is not unusual that bussinessmen would not be familiar with them.

Let me fill you in on "nationalist pride". Do not assume that Australians behave as Americans do. We believe in the ethos of the fair go. Wayne (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The previous post is loaded with the usual inaccuracies. Correcting and refuting all of the inaccuracies in all of this editor's Talk page posts and mainspace edits would be a full-time job. Most notably and most easily refuted, the editor blames "the applicant (ie:Deckers)" for failing to conduct a pre-application search to determine whether the word "UGG" or "UGH" was generic. Obviously from a quick read of the article and its very solid sourcing in this area, an Australian surfer named Shane Steadman was the original applicant for the "UGH-BOOTS" trademark in 1971, and for the "UGH" trademark and a stylized trademark containing the words "UGG AUSTRALIA" in 1982. So it was Shane Steadman who should have conducted these searches. Deckers had nothing to do with any of these marks until 1996. A quick review of the original versions of this article[9][10][11] suggests that it may have been created by one or more agents or employees of Koolaburra, which imports sheepskin boots from several firms into the United States, in an effort to discredit Deckers claims in countries other than Australia. The editor ignores this possibility, and pretends that the Australian market is the only market for sheepskin boots that exists on the planet. Markets many times larger exist elsewhere. The article was created in 2004 and the versions I've linked here are from 2004-05. Koolaburra was already engaged in litigation with Deckers in 2004 and lost the lawsuit in 2005.[12] Either this article is going to be about the boot style in the entire world, or it's going to be limited to the boot style in Australia and New Zealand. Editors are respectfully asked to refrain from switching back and forth from one position to the other in order to exclude any material they don't like, while including and expanding upon material they like. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual you cant reply without making a personal attack. You should not ask other editors to be respectful (which is redundant as most always are) when you do not behave respectfully yourself even when asked. Who cares if Steadman trademarked it first, no one knew because he didn't tell anyone in the industry or try to enforce it. Deckers likely knew it was a generic name here and they renewed the registration anyway. A review of the original versions shows that the article was created on July 27, 2004 while the first indication of any promotion of Australian products was almost a year later (July 26, 2005) and it was quickly deleted. Koolaburra didn't turn up in the article until September 30, 2005. Since then there has been a a lot of tendentious editing to promote Deckers. As you have been told time and time again, this article is about the boot style, not any particular brand or market and has pretty much stuck to that. You appear to be the only editor wanting the article to about Deckers. Accept consensus and move on. Wayne (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wayne can you please set aside your feud with P&W in the mean time. I think it is more important that this become a neutral and reliable article and less of an advertisement than it currently is - who first added advertising is less important than getting rid of it all. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Who cares if Steadman trademarked it first, no one knew because he didn't tell anyone in the industry or try to enforce it." This reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of trademark law and the duties of applicants, and marketing people in general. Applicants have a duty to conduct a pre-application search — not just to determine whether a mark might be generic, but also to find out whether anyone in the industry has already registered the mark. Marketing people also have a duty to conduct such searches, for the same reason. Neither Steadman nor Deckers had any duty to notify anyone about their registration of the mark. It was, and continues to be, a matter of public record. Anyone with Internet access can conduct such a search very thoroughly, though it's best to leave it to the lawyers. When Australian manufacturers continued to use the term despite its registration, Deckers did not sue immediately. Deckers sent out cease and desist letters, putting all these manufacturers on notice. It would have been a simple thing at that moment for the Aussie manufacturers to just start calling them "sheepskin boots" and be done with it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Five posts moved to more relevant section following.

No I have no interest in any manufacturer of footwear. I am not even Australian (I am a citzen of a country which has had a long and bitter rivalry with Australia in just about anything you could care to mention). My interest (if it could be so decribed) is in helping build a neutral and reliable encyclopaedia. The conflict (if there is any) is between neutral published sourcing which confirms that ug boots have existed as a generic style since (at the latest) the 1960s, and corporate mythology from a PDF on a free hosting web site which implies that the style spontaneously sprang into existence fully-formed from the brain of an Australian in America in the 1970s. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave and John’s ’s comments about the consumer tests. These tests have minimal, if any, encyclopedic value and should probably be removed. I have other concerns but I am going to put them in a fresh section as they are unrelated to the current RFC.--Factchk (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe consensus has been reached (7 - 1) to exclude/delete the quality section. As discussion has tailed off, I doubt if further time spent debating will alter the numbers significantly but if new voices appear they are free to continue the discussion to the 30 day deadline (17 November). As the discussion has evolved into another issue lets get this next problem out of the way. Wayne (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting the anon editor who, if he were here, would obviously make it 7-2. He's the one who wrote the section after all. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That anon doesn't count unless he comes here to vote and he probably wont for obvious reasons. Wayne (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What obvious reasons? It's obvious from his editing history that he edits for a long period, and then stops editing for a long period. Evidently he has gone into hibernation again. I suggest that you shouldn't be so quick to steamroller over him. He's an editor and since he authored the section you're trying to delete, his "vote" should be inferred from his actions. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This obvious reason. We cannot accept a vote "inferred from his actions". He can still vote here of course. Wayne (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting how I get repeatedly accused of sockpuppetry, nothing is ever proven, and I never get notified until weeks after the fact like it's a secret court in some Third World dictatorship. And yet somehow, it allegedly "proves" that the anon editor's vote can't be counted. Your previous history on another article clearly demonstrates your desire to continue a personal feud, recognized and discouraged by Daveosaurus just a couple of days ago, so I'll await input on this matter from others, if you don't mind. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed a possible match to other accounts so it's absolutely not out of the question that you and the IP are one and the same since you're editing out of the same city. The IP BTW wasn't checked (yet) as it was a stale at the time.TMCk (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and no, we don't "count" IP's that didn't comment in an RFC.TMCk (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you are also failing to disengage from your feud with Wayne [[13]] despite being asked [[14]] twice. [[15]] You are also the last who should complain about "an enormous pile of irrelevant details" considering that this is how the bulk of your contributions to this article and talk page could well be described. Lastly, if I was an uninvolved administrator my first thought would be to re-assess whatever scrap you were having with Wayne beforehand, in light of your behaviour here. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The anon is more than welcome to have a vote here. He made an edit yesterday on another article so is available. Wayne (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Include the section. I am the anon editor, formerly known as 63.171.91.193 and I created the section. Any previous edits from 63.171.91.193 should be considered mine. I have used other IP addresses, but that will do for now. I do not appreciate your efforts to silence me simply because I do not edit Wikipedia every day. I have now accepted the invitation of Factchk to create a User ID. Phoenix has the right idea about editing this article and I support his edits. So here I am, and you can count my vote. About the IP problem for Phoenix, "possible" is not proven. Your attacks are the reason why many editors like me have taken long breaks from Wikipedia, or left the project for good. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil. No editor has "attacked you". No editor has attempted to silence you and you were specifically invited to participate. Why are you so concerned about P&W? Checks are part of the WP process to encourage good behaviour on the part of editors. Wayne (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly just to correct a recent claim, Decker's UGG is sold in Australia (see their website for stockist details, I counted 20 outlets in NSW alone) and most Australians do know about the trademark issues due to the many national newspapers, radio shows, documentaries and TV reports on the UGG name over the years.

A quality section is greatly needed to separate synthetics from real sheepskin as well as world class, top rated brands from poor quality Ma & Pa's. Not only is Australia a very small country representing a fraction of 1% of the world population, but it only manufactures a very small % of these boots (all the major brands like EMU Australia etc are made in China). Decker's hit the billion dollar mark this year and 80% of that was wholesale (as per their publicly traded company reports). Luda Productions, according to their own claims, produce only 200,000 pairs and have 80% of the Australian wholesale market (check out the various links about them, in this ugg boots section, example below). That's only 15 million in wholesale sales (at 50% of retail). So as the entire Australian market is only about $20,000,000 or so, it is a MINOR producer of this style and therefore has become insignificant in name and market share as Decker's UGG sell this amount every 4 to 5 days!

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/dont-feel-sheepish-about-your-uggies/story-fn6bqphm-1226013106074

We can all understand why they want to continue to call them UGG boots in Australia but haven't they missed the boat? As far as quality, this report, while devastating to the Australian Sheepskin Association was conducted by 3rd party experts and is valid. Its valid because there is a big difference between Decker's quality and the Australian made. Go to Sydney and you will see dozens of boots, all saying Ugg in some form and most are just total rubbish. Also, Decker's costs less to produce in China so the "high cost item, better quality" argument is also total rubbish. Just because the Australia distributors sells them for twice that of the USA doesn't explain why the 3rd party, Australian footwear experts rated them so high. Now watch this be argued by the Australians, most of whom have never seen a Decker's UGG boot, some don't even realize that they are sold here, but want to defend their "mates". They wouldn't be selling a billion dollars a years if their quality wasn't very good! Go online and you will see all the complaints about Australian Made boots, not real Decker's UGGs.

Also, their is way too duplication and because of that, various conflicting statements (compare, Decker's, ugg boots & Ugg Australia pages). On the UGG Australia page there are now also links to three new companies, Bearpaw, Emu Australia and Pacific Sheepskins. They all claim to make Ugg boots so some editor has added them but a. Bearpaw doesn't use sheepskin, b. Emu just settled and agreed never to use the ugg name again and c. who the hell are Pacific sheepskins? (clearly an ad see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stop1212 ). How about correcting these pages as well and accepting that UGG means Decker's and they are the biggest in the world by far because they make a great product.--Cowboysforever (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with the second article as it seems to be an independent neutral source. Though the first paragraph is clearly biased, it worth being kept in the article, as it seems to represent a fairly popular view. As a side note I would say that this section belongs to the end of the article, as it relates to adoption of the product, which should come after product description. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bump - Bilby (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Bump - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has edited this section with any constructive content since November 16, two and one-half months ago. I suggest that the RfC should be closed with a finding of no consensus for removing the section. Any objections? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that this should be closed as no consensus - it is probably more inclined to be a remove than a keep, although that's close enough to warrant a non-involved editor's opinion. As the request to close this is still on WP:AN, I'd rather wait and see if that comes though. As we can't edit the article anyway, waiting for a couple more weeks won't hurt. - Bilby (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Seven votes for delete Vs four for keep (two of which are SPAs) seems to be a consensus for deletion. Where do you get "no consensus" from? Wayne (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but move the text of the section (along with the text in "Concern for Animals" and the concerns of the podiatrist) to a section at the very end of the article called "Concerns" (or something like that). Better still, weave back it into the Design section where I'm guessing it probably once was situated. Also the text itself, as most of the text in the article, badly needs a copy edit. Sources can be summarized rather than quoted word for word to improve the readability of the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a way forward. Remove the subsection header and weave the text back into the parent section, paraphrasing the Australian Sheepskin Association rather than quoting it word for word. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after nosing around a bit, I ran across an editor's sandbox draft that accomplishes that perfectly. In my opinion, their draft is also a good start towards making the article more readable and streamlining some of the excessive trademark dispute detail. What I like about WLRoss's draft is that it helps clarify how the term "Ugg boots" is defined differently in AU/NZ from the rest of the world, and it does a good job of summarizing the subject's early origins and connections to those countries surf and bogan cultures, which I think is appropriate. It also solves the issue of how to treat the Australian Sheepskin Association's concerns about fakes by putting it in context within the "Design" section. All of this makes WLRoss's draft a good jumping-off point to bring sorely-needed improvements to the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.